Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Photo: VHB

Guide for Improving

Pedestrian Safety

at Uncontrolled

Crossing Locations

July 2018, Updated

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no

liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not

constitute a standard, speciﬁcation, or regulation.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the

objective of the document.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. REPORT NO.

FHWA-SA-17-072

2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

5. REPORT DATE

January 2018 (July 2018, Updated)

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

CODE

7. AUTHOR(S)

Lauren Blackburn (VHB), Charles Zegeer (HSRC), and Kristen Brookshire (HSRC)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

DTFH61-16-D-00005

VHB

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300

Vienna, VA 22182

The University of North Carolina at

Chapel Hill

Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC)

104 Airport Drive, Suite 2200

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1350

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

Federal Highway Administration Ofﬁce of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

FHWA

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The Task Order Contracting Ofﬁcer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Rebecca Crowe.

16. ABSTRACT

This guide assists State or local transportation or trafﬁc safety departments that are considering developing a policy

or guide to support the installation of countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. This document

provides guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. By focusing

on uncontrolled crossing locations, agencies can address a signiﬁcant national safety problem and improve quality of life

for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement

existing local decision-making guidelines.

The January 2018 version of this guide was updated to include the Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). FHWA

issued a new Interim Approval (IA-21) for the optional use of RRFBs in March 2018.

17. KEY WORDS

pedestrian crash countermeasures, uncontrolled crossings, midblock crossings,

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, Road Diet, crosswalk visibility enhancements,

pedestrian refuge island, raised crosswalk, Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

No restrictions.

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS

REPORT)

Unclassiﬁed

20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS

PAGE)

Unclassiﬁed

21. NO. OF PAGES

22. PRICE

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

What is the

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

State or local transportation or trafﬁc safety departments should consider developing a policy or guide to support the

installation of countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. This document provides guidance to

agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. Agencies may use this guide

to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-making guidelines.

This document was produced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of the Safe Transportation for

Every Pedestrian (STEP) program. STEP is part of the fourth round of Every Day Counts. STEP's purpose is to help

transportation agencies address crashes by promoting countermeasures with known safety beneﬁts at uncontrolled

crossing locations.

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations occur where sidewalks or designated walkways intersect a roadway at

a location where no trafﬁc control (i.e. trafﬁc signal or STOP sign) is present. These common crossing types occur at

intersections (where they may be marked or unmarked) and at non-intersection or midblock locations (where they must

be marked as crossings). Overall, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations correspond to higher pedestrian crash

rates, often due to inadequate pedestrian crossing accommodations.

By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, local and State agencies can address a signiﬁcant national safety

problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. STEP promotes the following six effective

and lower-cost countermeasures that communities can deploy based on their speciﬁc needs:

» Crosswalk visibility enhancements (i.e., high-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restriction on crosswalk

approach, improved lighting, advance Yield Here To [Stop Here For] Pedestrians sign and yield [stop] line, In-

Street Pedestrian Crossing sign, and curb extension).

» Raised crosswalk.

» Pedestrian refuge island.

» Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB).

» Road Diet.

» Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB).

These countermeasures and their safety beneﬁts are described further in this guide. The guide also includes best

practices for identifying locations and installing countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations.

iii

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Table of Contents

Introduction ..........................................................................................1

1. Collect Data and Engage the Public ............................................3

2. Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations ..............................8

3. Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues ......................................12

4. Select Countermeasure(s) ............................................................15

5. Consult Design and Installation Resources ................................23

6. Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes ..........................24

Glossary ...............................................................................................27

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian

Safety ...................................................................................................29

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table ....................................32

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

List of Figures

Figure 1. Process diagram for selecting countermeasures at

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. ................................... 1

Figure 2. Excerpt from "Walkability Checklist." ............................... 5

Figure 3. Example crossing inventory worksheet. ........................... 9

Figure 4. Crash cluster analysis map: Richmond, VA................... 11

Figure 5. Pedestrian collision summary. ......................................... 13

Figure 6. Rendering of a PHB. ......................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by

roadway feature.................................................................................16

Table 2. Safety issues addressed per countermeasure. ...............17

Table 3. CRFs and CMFs by countermeasure. ................................ 32

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

List of Abbreviations

AADT annual average daily trafﬁc

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Ofﬁcials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT average daily trafﬁc

CMF crash modiﬁcation factor

CRF crash reduction factor

EDC Every Day Counts

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association

GIS geographic information system

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSP Highway Safety Plan

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices

NHTSA National Highway Trafﬁc Safety Administration

PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

RRFB Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

RSA Road Safety Audit

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant

STEP Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian

TZD Toward Zero Deaths

VZ Vision Zero

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Introduction

Pedestrians are among the most vulnerable

road users, accounting for approximately 16

percent of all roadway fatalities nationally in

2016, per the Fatality Analysis Reporting System

(FARS).

Pedestrians are especially vulnerable

at non-intersection locations, where 72 percent

of pedestrian fatalities occur.

This guide addresses safety issues at

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations,

which occur where sidewalks or designated

walkways intersect a roadway at a location

where no trafﬁc control (i.e., trafﬁc signal

or STOP sign) is present. These common

crossing types occur at intersections (where

they may be marked or unmarked) and

at non-intersection or midblock locations

(where they must be marked as crossings).

Overall, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

locations correspond to higher pedestrian

crash rates than controlled locations, often

due to inadequate pedestrian crossing

accommodations.

How to Use this Guide

The guide includes steps to assist an agency

in selecting appropriate countermeasures

to help improve pedestrian safety, as

illustrated in Figure 1. An agency that has

an established process for identifying

priority locations for pedestrian safety

improvements should review the guidance

in Steps 3 through 6. This information is most

important for selecting pedestrian crossing

countermeasures. An agency that is at

the beginning stages of identifying priority

locations should consult each of the steps

described in this guide.

NHSTA, “FARS Data Query: 2016 Data.” Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia. (2017). https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/QuerySection/

SelectYear.aspx

Collect data and

engage the public

Inventory conditions

and prioritize locations

Analyze crash types

and safety issues

Identify opportunities

and monitor outcomes

Consult design and

installation resources

Select countermeasures

Figure 1. Process diagram for selecting

countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian

crossing locations.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Introduction

Following the process in the guide results

in possible countermeasure options based

on road conditions, crash causes, and

pedestrian safety issues. The guide provides

two reference tables to help identify

countermeasure options. Table 1 identiﬁes

countermeasures by roadway conditions

such as vehicle speed limit, annual average

daily trafﬁc (AADT), and number of travel

lanes. Table 2 helps further pinpoint the most

appropriate countermeasures by common

safety concerns such as failure to yield or

excessive vehicle speeds. The guide does

not include speciﬁc recommendations for

countermeasures based on all criteria in

design and reference manuals, such as

actual speeds and pedestrian volumes.

The agency should reference the Manual

on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices (MUTCD),

American Association of State Highway and

Transportation Ofﬁcials (AASHTO) design

guidelines, and State and local practices

when selecting one or more speciﬁc

countermeasures. The guide is followed by

appendices including reference material for

a local agency resolution and a summary of

research cited for crash modiﬁcation factors

(CMFs).

The agency should note additional

considerations for the application of this

guide, such as costs to design, install, and

maintain the treatments. The agency should

apply engineering judgment and conduct

ﬁeld investigations to conﬁrm data and

observe driver and pedestrian behaviors

when selecting countermeasures.

Building a safe and connected pedestrian

network requires consideration of topics

beyond what is included in this guide.

This guide does not include methods for

prioritizing sidewalk improvements, but

agencies should consider giving special

attention to connecting the pedestrian

network with sidewalks, walkways, paved

shoulders, and trails and paths. The

ActiveTrans Priority Tool was created through

the National Cooperative Highway Research

Program and can provide agencies with

automated resources to prioritize pedestrian

and bicycle improvements.

Pedestrian crossings in or near school zones

are not speciﬁcally addressed in this guide,

as these crossings may be subject to other

guidance or other considerations. Agencies

may refer to the "Safe Routes to School

Brieﬁng Sheets: School Area Trafﬁc Control"

produced by the Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE) for guidance on improving

pedestrian crossings near schools.

This guide does not describe pedestrian

crossing requirements per the Americans

with Disabilities Act (ADA), although ADA

requirements should be addressed as part

of any pedestrian crossing improvements

project. For more information about ADA

accessibility requirements, the agency

should consult the US Access Board's 1991

ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), the

2010 Standards for Accessible Design, and

the 2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way

(proposed PROWAG).

Collect Data and Engage the Public

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes optional methods for describing existing pedestrian safety trends and engaging stakeholders.

The following are important considerations for this step in the process of selecting countermeasures:

» Review existing plans for safety statistics and locations previously identiﬁed for safety improvements.

» Develop a resolution or policy statement in support of improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations.

» If a formal process is preferred, initiate a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan to engage the community and identify

priority locations.

» If a less formal process is preferred, document public comments previously received or conduct a walkability audit

to identify locations generally considered as less safe for pedestrians crossing.

Collect Pedestrian Crash and

Safety Data

Crash reports completed by law

enforcement agencies may include

information about driver and pedestrian

actions, as well as environmental conditions

when and where the crash occurred. These

data are helpful to understand safety issues

in the area. Crash data may be geocoded

and mapped. The agency can collect crash

maps, request crash reports (as needed),

and contact public health ofﬁcials for other

pedestrian injury data.

Review Existing Trafﬁc Safety Plans

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)

is a statewide-coordinated, data-driven

safety plan that provides a comprehensive

framework for reducing highway fatalities

and serious injuries on all public roads.

States are required to update the SHSP at

least once every ﬁve years. The SHSP may

include an emphasis area and strategies

for improving pedestrian safety. The agency

should review the SHSP for pedestrian crash

statistics and strategies for pedestrian safety

improvements.

The SHSP informs the State's Highway Safety

Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP is a

program of highway safety improvement

Collect Data and

Engage the Public

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

projects, activities, plans and reports. HSIP

projects are selected through a data-driven

approach and can include pedestrian

crash countermeasures and intersection

improvements. Some States set aside HSIP

funding for pedestrian safety improvements,

while other States use a common scoring

process to consider safety projects for all

travel modes. The agency should identify

and understand pedestrian safety projects

in the current HSIP, and consider how

pedestrian safety projects are identiﬁed

for potential funding and implementation.

The Safety Performance Management

Measures Final Rule (23 CFR 490) establishes

requirements that support the HSIP,

including a measure for the number of

non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized

serious injuries. This performance measure

includes both pedestrians and bicyclists.

The State’s Highway Safety Plan (HSP)

must also be coordinated with the SHSP.

The HSP is an annual strategy submitted

by the State’s Governor’s Highway Safety

Ofﬁce to the National Highway Trafﬁc Safety

Administration (NHTSA). The HSP focuses on

countermeasures that address driver and

non-motorized behavior, and it provides

an investment plan for activities such as

law enforcement operations and public

education programs. The HSP includes

performance measures established by

NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety

Association (GHSA), including one for

pedestrian fatalities. Pedestrian safety

initiatives are eligible for funding through the

HSP. The agency should research pedestrian

safety programs recommended in the HSP

and consider how pedestrian crossing

treatments can support the performance

standards described in the HSP.

Evaluate Pedestrian

Accommodation and Trafﬁc

Safety Policies

The agency may have a policy or guidance

for how pedestrian improvements are

incorporated into other roadway projects,

such as a Complete Streets policy. The

policy explains the process for integrating

sidewalks and crossing treatments into

routine street maintenance activities and

large-scale highway projects. The agency

should examine the linkages between

Complete Streets and pedestrian safety

and consider improvements to the process

to better integrate pedestrian crossing

improvements into roadway projects.

The agency may have adopted a policy

for eliminating trafﬁc-related fatalities, such

as a Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths

initiative. The programs focus on eliminating

or signiﬁcantly reducing trafﬁc fatalities and

prioritize strategies for the most vulnerable

roadway users, such as pedestrians. These

programs may summarize how all agency

departments can improve pedestrian and

trafﬁc safety, and may include metrics that

establish the need for safety at uncontrolled

pedestrian crossings.

Review Pedestrian Master Plans

for Proposed Projects

Another approach to identify pedestrian

issues is to review existing local or regional

plans, particularly those with a focus on

pedestrians, for potential locations for

safety projects and to identify needed

countermeasures. A State or local

pedestrian master plan may include

recommendations for pedestrian

safety projects, identiﬁed infrastructure

deﬁciencies, and/or documentation

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

about safety concerns. This step leverages

prior analyses and helps to identify

countermeasures that that the agency is

already considering.

Initiate a Pedestrian Safety Action

Plan (PSAP)

Agency leaders and community stakeholders

can begin a formal process to identify priority

locations and key strategies for improving

pedestrian safety. The agency may initiate a

PSAP to increase community awareness and

support for improving pedestrian safety. A

PSAP considers the input of stakeholders from

multiple disciplines and uses data analysis

to identify potential locations for safety

improvement.

Document Informal Public

Comments

The agency can identify locations of

signiﬁcance within a jurisdiction by

collecting concerns and requests from

community partners. Agencies should set

up a process for receiving, tracking, and

responding to input from residents and

visitors. Many local governments respond

with trafﬁc calming request applications

or online forms for residents with concerns

about pedestrian safety on high-speed

arterials or collector streets. Agencies may

also consider forming a committee or work

group devoted to considering pedestrian

safety and mobility, such as a pedestrian

advisory committee. This type of group can

collect input from stakeholders and present

their concerns to agency staff or decision-

makers.

Conduct a Walkability Audit

Community leaders and neighbors can

conduct a walkability audit at priority

locations or corridors to identify deﬁciencies

in the pedestrian network at a small area

or neighborhood scale. This is an informal

method for engaging stakeholders and

raising awareness about pedestrian safety.

Leaders can organize an event and ask

participants to follow a simple checklist

to assess neighborhood streets. Figure 2

shows an excerpt from a sample "walkability

checklist" that agencies may use to conduct

a walkability audit.

Figure 2. Excerpt from "Walkability Checklist."

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Created in collaboration with FHWA, NHTSA, National Center for Safe

Routes to School, and United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

RESOURCES

NHTSA Pedestrian Safety Information

NHTSA publishes annual reports summarizing

the latest pedestrian fatality statistics. These

statistics are based on FARS and the reports

describe pedestrian fatality trends per different

socioeconomic groups and for each State.

Smart Growth America – National Complete

Streets Coalition

Smart Growth America, a non-governmental

advocacy organization, supports the National

Complete Streets Coalition. This organization

provides resources to support the development and

implementation of Complete Streets policies. These

policies encourage pedestrian mobility and safety

by promoting street design that accommodates

controlled and uncontrolled crossings. For example,

the Massachusetts Department of Transportation

Complete Streets program assists local

governments developing Complete Streets policies

and implementation plans.

FHWA State SHSP Resources

The FHWA Ofﬁce of Safety posts a link to each

State’s current SHSP. This website also lists

noteworthy practices. Many SHSP plans provide

an emphasis on pedestrians and contain goals for

reducing trafﬁc fatalities and injuries.

The Ohio DOT 2015 SHSP has a pedestrian

emphasis area that seeks to reduce fatalities

and serious injuries through six strategies

that include data collection, institutionalizing

pedestrian accommodations, implementing proven

countermeasures, and promoting law enforcement.

FHWA HSIP Resources

The HSIP includes the projects selected for

implementation, an evaluation of past projects,

and an annual status report. Projects can include

pedestrian safety improvement programs and

projects. For example, the 2016 Oregon HSIP

Annual Report details how the its All Roads

Transportation Safety Program sets aside funding to

address systemic pedestrian crash locations.

State HSP Documents

NHTSA posts the States’ current HSP outlining

non-infrastructure strategies for improving

roadway safety. A State HSP is likely to contain a

pedestrian fatality and injury reduction goal, an

associated performance measure, and describe

non-infrastructure initiatives like enforcement and

education programs. For example, Colorado DOT's

2017 HSP (called the 2017 Integrated Safety Plan)

supports the Denver Police Department’s “Decoy

Pedestrian Program” to enforce driver yielding

compliance at high-crash pedestrian crossings.

Vision Zero Network

This collaborative website posts case studies

and tracks cities who are implementing Vision

Zero plans or goals. The Vision Zero Network

website also notes best practices by agencies

who are working to eliminate trafﬁc fatalities

and serious injuries. Vision Zero goals are

accompanied by policies, strategies, and target

dates. For example, Columbia, Missouri’s Vision

Zero Action Plan contains an outreach campaign

to educate pedestrians and drivers on new and

potentially confusing infrastructure improvements

like pedestrian hybrid beacons and enhanced

pedestrian crosswalks.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle

Safety Action Plan (2017)

This document explains the process of developing

pedestrian and bicycle safety action plans. The

sources of data required for these plans may include

police reports, roadway and intersection conditions,

ﬁeld visits of crash sites. For example, New Jersey’s

PSAP identiﬁed how its infrastructure prioritization

programs could be revised to recognize locations

with systemic pedestrian crash risk.

FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying

Design Flexibility and Reducing Conﬂicts (2016)

This resource focuses on ﬂexibility and options

for the design of pedestrian and bicycle networks

designed to minimize crash conﬂicts, including

case studies to illustrate various design treatments.

Walkability Checklist

This tool can be used by community leaders

during a walkability audit to evaluate pedestrian

infrastructure and trafﬁc behavior.

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes how the agency can document ﬁeld conditions (such as roadway characteristics) necessary for

prioritizing locations and selecting countermeasures. The following are important considerations for this step:

» Create a worksheet or checklist of roadway characteristics to record in the ﬁeld (see Figure 3).

» Document pedestrian volumes and driver behavior, especially where pedestrians are frequently expected such as at

bus stop locations and near schools.

» Classify pedestrian crossings as either uncontrolled or controlled locations.

» Analyze data and create maps to show priority locations for pedestrian improvements.

Inventory Roadway Characteristics

The process of collecting roadway

characteristics includes compiling

geospatial data to create base maps

for each of the priority sites. Roadway

conditions are key criteria for selecting

countermeasures. The agency may

document and map the following roadway

characteristics for priority sites (see Glossary

for more information):

» Speeds, including posted speed limits and

actual speeds (i.e., 85th percentile speeds).

» Number of travel lanes for each approach.

» Center turn lanes, medians, or refuge islands.

» Intersection turn lanes.

» Vehicle queue lengths at intersections.

» Width of roadway, from curb to curb.

» Trafﬁc volumes (AADT or ADT).

» Large truck trafﬁc volumes or large trucks

as a percentage of total trafﬁc.

» On-street parking, alignment, and marked

or signed restrictions.

Inventory Conditions

and Prioritize Locations

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Figure 3. Example crossing inventory worksheet.

Source: City of Boulder, Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines (2011).

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Inventory Pedestrian Crossings

and Observed Trafﬁc Behavior

The agency can also document pedestrian

crossing conditions. Agency staff can visit

the sites and record the following crossing

site features:

» Crosswalk markings, presence, and types.

» Crosswalk distance (in feet) and crossing

phase duration (in seconds).

» Signage, such as advance, crosswalk, and

in-street.

» Trafﬁc control devices and signals, such

as pedestrian crossing signal, pedestrian

signal detector, STOP sign, RRFB, and PHB.

» Signal phasing and restrictions, such

as Leading Pedestrian Interval, split

or concurrent phasing type, and turn

restrictions.

» Vertical elements, such as refuge island or

raised crosswalk.

» Horizontal elements, such as curb

extensions, narrowed curb radii, Road Diet,

or lane reconﬁguration.

» Accessibility features, such as curb ramps,

truncated domes, and accessible signal

push buttons.

» Lighting and visibility enhancements, such

as overhead lighting.

» Pedestrian volumes, including transit

boarding volumes from nearby stops.

» Pedestrian crossing behaviors near

important activity centers such as transit

stops, schools, and in downtown districts.

» Driver behaviors at crosswalks and

intersections.

» Sight distance and visual clearance of

crossing.

Classify Pedestrian Crossings as

Controlled or Uncontrolled

In addition to collecting inventory information

about the priority sites, it is important that the

agency categorize each crossing as either

controlled or uncontrolled. Uncontrolled

pedestrian crossing locations occur where

sidewalks or designated walkways intersect

a roadway at a location where no trafﬁc

control (i.e., trafﬁc signal or STOP sign) is

present. These common crossing types occur

at intersections (where they may be marked

or unmarked) and at non-intersection or

midblock locations (where they must be

marked as crossings). This guide describes

countermeasures applicable to uncontrolled

crossings. Some of these countermeasures

can also be used for controlled crossings,

and the agency should consult other

guidance for speciﬁc implementation

criteria at those sites.

Screen the Network for High-

Crash or High-Risk Locations

By following a data-driven approach, the

agency can readily explain and defend

how it selected priority sites for improvement.

An agency can study, or screen, the safety

conditions for the road network within its

jurisdiction. The screening process uses

geo-coded pedestrian crash data and

other information to identify different types

of locations. Network screening may take

the form of spot safety or systemic safety

analysis. Spot safety analysis is based on

crash history at individual locations and

identiﬁed high-crash locations. The systemic

approach analyzes crash history on an

aggregate basis to identify roadways that

have high-crash experience, as well as

high-risk characteristics at other sites before

crashes occur, so countermeasures can be

selected to address these characteristics.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Analyze “Hot Spots” or Crash Cluster

Locations

Spot safety analysis involves mapping

the individual locations of crashes over a

time period, preferably at least 5 years for

pedestrian crash data. Mapping these

crashes on a geographic information system

(GIS) helps to visually reveal clusters, or “hot

spots,” of pedestrian crashes. Similarly, using

the spot analysis approach may also reveal

corridors or areas where pedestrian crashes

tend to cluster. Grouping the clusters of

crashes identiﬁed in the spot location

process can show areas of potential

pedestrian improvements. These areas

may be corridors, roadways that share

roadway design features, and/or areas of

a similar land use. Figure 4 shows a map of

pedestrian crash locations in an area.

Develop a Systemic Analysis Approach

Many areas may have low pedestrian

crash rates, but still have a high risk for

pedestrian crashes. The agency can

identify these sites based on roadway

characteristics combined with land use

features of the area. The agency may select

countermeasures to address these high-risk

factors before pedestrian crashes occur.

The systemic analysis can cover different

geographies; an agency may choose to

analyze for an area of interest or the entire

jurisdiction. Systemic analysis considers

factors such as inadequate roadway

design and trafﬁc control devices, lighting

conditions, vehicle speeds, and nearby

pedestrian destinations. Combinations of

these factors help identify countermeasures

to address and prevent pedestrian crashes.

Figure 4. Crash cluster analysis map: Richmond, VA.

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (2017).

Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes methods for summarizing pedestrian crash types and observed trafﬁc safety issues. This

information is important for selecting countermeasures. The following are important considerations for this step:

» Diagram crashes according to information included on crash reports (see Figure 5 for a sample diagram).

» Review the crash types described by the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE).

» Conduct a pedestrian Road Safety Audit (RSA) to formally engage representatives from various departments and

interest groups.

» Lead an informal site visit to engage stakeholders and describe conditions observed in the ﬁeld.

Diagram Crash Reports

Crash diagrams are created to graphically

illustrate crash data associated with a given

site. Each crash is plotted on a schematic

of the site at the approximate location

where the crash occurred. Icons are used

to represent crash types so that patterns

are identiﬁable. Spatial analysis tools like

GIS can also enhance the analysis. Crash

diagrams are sometimes plotted on aerial

imagery and cross referenced with a

tabular listing of the associated crash data

so that agency staff can easily access key

information. Crash diagrams are useful

when there are many crashes associated

with a site. An agency may not have

sufﬁcient pedestrian crash history to reveal

crash patterns, but the absence of crash

data does not necessarily mean a safety

problem does not exist. In these cases, an

agency should consider systemic analysis.

Identify Crash Factors

Whether an agency is assembling the crash

diagrams or simply conducting an exercise

to identify potential factors for pedestrian

crashes in their jurisdiction, these factors

can be considered:

» Vehicle speed.

» Compliance with regulations and trafﬁc

devices.

» Pedestrian crossing behaviors.

» Built environment or area type.

Analyze Crash Types

and Safety Issues

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues

» Intersection presence and types of trafﬁc

control devices.

» Pedestrian crossing distance.

» Time of day/day of week/seasonal factors.

» Alcohol involvement by pedestrians or

drivers.

» Demographics.

» Special populations, such as school-aged

children, older adults, and persons with

disabilities.

» Presence of transit stops.

Conduct a Road Safety Audit (RSA)

An RSA is the formal safety performance

examination of an existing or future

road or intersection by an independent,

multidisciplinary team. It qualitatively estimates

and reports on potential road safety issues

and identiﬁes opportunities for improvements

in safety for all road users. An RSA considers

all users of the roadway and human factors

and generates a formal report and response

upon its conclusion. The agency can use

the ﬁeld conditions inventory and crash

type summary during the RSA process. RSAs

typically produce multiple planning-level

countermeasure recommendations for the

study corridor or area.

Figure 5. Pedestrian collision summary.

Source: City of Phoenix, AZ. 2015 Pedestrian Collision Summary (2015).

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues

Like traditional RSAs, pedestrian RSAs are

performed by a multidisciplinary team of

experts or agency representatives, use

structured prompt lists, and consider the

surrounding socioeconomic and land use

context. The materials for a pedestrian

RSA provide more detail on pedestrian

safety issues and examine elements such

as signage, obstructions, signals, bus stop

locations, drainage, and lighting. These

tools can help identify possible deﬁciencies

in the pedestrian network and potential

locations for further investigation.

Lead an Informal Site Visit

An alternative to a formal RSA is an on-

site evaluation of pedestrian conditions

including representatives from multiple

agency departments and stakeholder

interest groups. An informal on-site

evaluation can collect information about

pedestrian crossings and trafﬁc operations

at the neighborhood or area-wide scale.

Law enforcement, public health, community

groups, neighborhood residents, street

or transportation departments, planning,

emergency response, schools, and public

transportation agencies can be involved in

the process. The ﬁndings from this informal

evaluation should be documented and

shared with participants.

RESOURCES

FHWA Model Road Safety Audit Policy (2014)

This resource outlines the steps typically taken to

conduct an RSA and the roles of the stakeholders.

Identifying safety issues is an element of the RSA

that is accompanied by suggestions on how to

enhance the speciﬁc road’s safety.

Pedestrian RSA Guidelines and Prompt Lists

(2007)

This resource complements practices for RSAs

with additional guidance and a ﬁeld manual for a

pedestrian-focused RSA. An RSA team will use the

knowledge of a diverse team, analysis of crash data,

and a site visit to identify pedestrian safety issues.

Pedestrian RSA Case Studies (2009)

This website provides links to several examples of

RSAs focused on identifying pedestrian safety risks

and improvement strategies. For example, the City

of Tucson, Arizona conducted an RSA of roadways

with PHBs to improve the countermeasures’ visibility

and usability.

PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Crash Typing

PEDSAFE provides deﬁnitions for 12 key pedestrian

crash types identiﬁed by the software package, the

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT).

PBCAT is still used by many agencies but may not be

compatible with some current operating systems.

Select Countermeasure(s)

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section can help the agency select countermeasures based on information previously collected and assessed.

The agency can use the following resources to select countermeasures:

» First, reference Table 1 to compare roadway and vehicle speed characteristics to countermeasure options.

» Then, reference Table 2 to compare crash types and other observed safety issues to countermeasure options.

» Review Appendix B for more information about countermeasure CRFs and CMFs.

Application of Countermeasures

by Roadway Feature

Table 1 includes a comprehensive

matrix and list of STEP pedestrian crash

countermeasures suggested for application

at uncontrolled crossing locations

per roadway and trafﬁc features. The

countermeasures are assigned to speciﬁc

matrix cells based on safety research,

best practices, and established national

guidelines. When a pedestrian crossing is

established, the agency should review the

countermeasure options in the cells before

selecting the optimal group of crossing

treatments. The agency should consider

the previously obtained characteristics

such as pedestrian volume, operational

speeds, land use context, and other site

features when selecting countermeasures.

The agency should also reference the

MUTCD and other national, State, and local

guidelines when making the ﬁnal selection

of countermeasures.

For example, the agency may evaluate a

5-lane road with no raised median, an AADT

of 12,000, and a 35 mph posted speed

limit. The matrix recommends the agency

strongly consider high-visibility crosswalks,

adequate lighting, and parking restrictions

on the approaches. In addition, the agency

should strongly consider adding advance

Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians

signs and yield (stop) lines, pedestrian

refuge islands, and PHBs. Other candidate

treatments include implementing a Road

Diet along the corridor and adding curb

extensions.

Select Countermeasure(s)

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Table 1 provides initial countermeasure

options for various roadway conditions. Each

matrix cell indicates possibilities that may

be appropriate for designated pedestrian

crossings. Not all of the countermeasures

listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be

installed at a crossing.

For multi-lane roadway crossings with

vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked

crosswalk alone is typically insufﬁcient

(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more

substantial crossing improvements (such as

the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also

needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian

crash potential.

Roadway Conﬁguration

Posted Speed Limit and AADT

Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000

≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph

2 lanes

(1 lane in each direction)

4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6

7 9

7 9 7 9

3 lanes with raised median

(1 lane in each direction)

2 3

1 3

4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5

7 9

7 9 7 9

7 9

7 9 9

3 lanes w/o raised median

(1 lane in each direction with a

two-way left-turn lane)

2 3

3 1

4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6

7 9 7 9

7 9

7 9 9

7 9

9 9

4+ lanes with raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

1 3 1

3 1 3

3 1

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

7 8 9 7 8 9 8

7 8 9

9 7

4+ lanes w/o raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

3 1

3 1 3 1

3 1 3 1 3 1

3 1 3 1 3

5 6 5

7 8 9 7 8 9 8

7 8 9

9 7

Given the set of conditions in a cell,

# Signiﬁes that the countermeasure is a candidate

treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.

Signiﬁes that the countermeasure should always be

considered, but not mandated or required, based upon

engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled

crossing location.

Signiﬁes that crosswalk visibility enhancements should

always occur in conjunction with other identiﬁed

countermeasures.*

The absence of a number signiﬁes that the countermeasure

is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may

be considered following engineering judgment.

1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on

crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels,

and crossing warning signs

2 Raised crosswalk

3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign

and yield (stop) line

4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign

5 Curb extension

6 Pedestrian refuge island

7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**

8 Road Diet

9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**

Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature.

*Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures.

**It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.

This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked

crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices, 2009 Edition.

(revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modiﬁcation Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian

Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer,

C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modiﬁcation Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board,

Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington,

D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Safety Issues Addressed per

Countermeasure

The results of the crash analysis, road safety

audit, and/or stakeholder input provide

the agency with a better understanding

of the risk factors at uncontrolled crossing

locations. The countermeasures listed

in this guide can improve the visibility of

crossing locations and reduce crashes,

and they each address at least one

additional safety concern associated with

a higher risk of collision and/or severe

injury. These additional safety issues include

the following: excessive vehicle speed,

inadequate conspicuity/visibility, drivers not

yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, and

insufﬁcient separation from trafﬁc.

Table 2 shows the speciﬁc safety issues that

each countermeasure may address. For

example, the addition of PHBs has been

consistently shown to improve motorist

yielding by 90 percent or greater, when

compared with no trafﬁc control or warning

type devices.

Table 2. Safety issues addressed per countermeasure.

Safety Issue Addressed

Pedestrian Crash Countermeasure

for Uncontrolled Crossings

Conﬂicts

at crossing

locations

Excessive

vehicle speed

Inadequate

conspicuity/

visibility

Drivers not

yielding to

pedestrians in

crosswalks

Insufﬁcient

separation from

trafﬁc

Crosswalk visibility enhancement

High-visibility crosswalk markings*

Parking restriction on crosswalk

approach*

Improved nighttime lighting*

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For)

Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line*

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign*

Curb extension*

Raised crosswalk

Pedestrian refuge island

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Road Diet

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

*These countermeasures make up the STEP countermeasure “crosswalk visibility enhancements.” Multiple countermeasures may be

implemented at a location as part of crosswalk visibility enhancements.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures

Table 1 provides initial countermeasure

options for various roadway conditions.

Each matrix cell indicates possibilities

that may be appropriate for

designated pedestrian crossings.

Not all of the countermeasures listed

in the matrix cell should necessarily

be installed at a crossing. Agency

ofﬁcials should also review safety issues

referenced in Table 2, the surrounding

land development context, pedestrian

travel patterns, countermeasure

effectiveness, and costs when

considering what countermeasure(s)

are best suited for the crossing.

A marked crosswalk is useful to show

pedestrians and drivers preferred

crossing locations. However, for multi-

lane roadway crossings where vehicle

AADTs are in excess of 10,000, a marked

crosswalk alone is typically not sufﬁcient

(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions,

more substantial crossing improvements

are also needed to prevent an increase

in pedestrian crash potential. Examples

of more substantial treatments include

the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB. Refer

to the symbols used in Table 1 for

when a marked crosswalk should be

paired with one or more of the other

countermeasures described.

To further increase visibility of

pedestrian crossings, agencies often

integrate multiple countermeasures.

For example, the Pedestrian Hybrid

Beacon is often installed in conjunction

with advance stop markings and

signs. Also, Road Diets present

opportunities for adding pedestrian

refuge islands and curb extensions

at key crossing locations. Agencies

should consider roadway geometry and

the MUTCD when integrating multiple

countermeasures.

Countermeasure Descriptions

This subsection describes considerations

for implementation of each of the

countermeasures included in Tables

1 and 2. The agency can review other

guidance—such as the MUTCD, the AASHTO

Pedestrian Guide, and/or agency policies

and practices—to identify and select

countermeasures for implementation.

Crosswalk visibility enhancements

High-visibility crosswalks may include a

variety of crosswalk striping designs, such

as ladder, continental, or bar pairs. A

high-visibility crosswalk is much easier for

an approaching motorist to see than the

traditional parallel lines. The agency should

strongly consider providing high-visibility

crosswalks at all established midblock

pedestrian crossings. The high-visibility

markings may be supplemented with the

pedestrian crossing warning signs (sign

W11-2 in the MUTCD) on each approach

to the crosswalk. MUTCD Section 2C.50—

Non Vehicular Warning Signs

and Section

3B.18—

Crosswalk Markings

provide

additional information.

The agency should also strongly consider

implementing parking restrictions on the

crosswalk approach at all established

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

pedestrian crossings (both approaches) so

there is adequate sight distance for motorists

on the approaches to the crossings and

ample sight distance for pedestrians

attempting to cross. The minimum setback

is 20 feet where speeds are 25 mph or less,

and 30 feet between 26 mph and 35 mph.

If this cannot be done, the curbs should

be “bulbed out” to allow the pedestrian

to see past the parked vehicle along the

street. Adjacent bus stops should be placed

downstream of the crosswalk and not on the

crosswalk approach.

The agency should consider providing

an appropriate level of lighting at

all established pedestrian crossings.

Consideration should be given to placing

the lights 10 to 15 feet in advance of the

crosswalk on both sides of the street and on

both approaches to better light the front of

the pedestrian and avoid silhouette lighting

(where possible).

In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign

In-street signs are placed in the middle of

the road at a crossing and are often used

in conjunction with refuge islands. These

signs may be appropriate on 2-lane or

3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or

less. On higher-speed, higher-volume, and/

or multilane roads, this treatment may not

be as visually prominent; therefore, it may

be less effective (drivers may not notice

the signs in time to stop in advance of

the crosswalk). For such roadways, more

robust treatments will be needed. When

making the choice to use these signs, the

agency should consider making a plan

and securing a funding source for the

maintenance and prompt replacement of

damaged signs. The MUTCD permits in-

street pedestrian signs for installation on

centerlines and along lane lines. MUTCD

Section 2B.12—

In-Street and Overhead

Pedestrian Crossing Signs

contains additional

information about these signs.

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For)

Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For)

Pedestrians signs are placed between

30 and 50 feet in advance of the marked

crosswalk along with the stop line or “shark’s

teeth” yield line. This is a candidate treatment

for any uncontrolled pedestrian crossing,

and should be strongly considered for any

established pedestrian crossing on roads with

four or more lanes and/or roads with speed

limits of 35 mph or greater. Stop Here For

Pedestrians signs should only be used where

the law speciﬁcally requires that a driver must

stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. MUTCD

Section 2B.11—

Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs

and Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs

and

Section 3B.16—

Stop and Yield Lines

contain

additional information.

Curb extension

A curb extension or "bulbout" extends

the sidewalk or curb line into the street or

parking lane, thus reducing the street width

and improving sight distance between the

driver and pedestrian. A curb extension is a

candidate treatment for any uncontrolled

pedestrian crossing, particularly where

parking lanes exist. Curb extensions should

not extend into paths of travel for bicyclists.

Raised crosswalk

Raised crosswalks function as an extension

of the sidewalk and allow a pedestrian

to cross the street at a constant grade. A

raised crosswalk is typically a candidate

treatment on 2-lane or 3-lane roads with

speed limits of 30 mph or less and AADTs

below 9,000. Raised crossings are generally

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

avoided on truck routes, emergency routes,

and arterial streets. Drainage needs to

be accommodated. See MUTCD Section

3B.25—

Speed Hump Markings

for additional

information about markings that can be

used alongside raised crosswalks.

Pedestrian refuge island

A pedestrian island is typically constructed

in the middle of a 2-way street and

provides a place for pedestrians to stand

and wait for motorists to stop or yield. This

countermeasure is highly desirable for

midblock pedestrian crossings on roads

with four or more lanes, and should be

considered for undivided crossings of

four or more lanes with speed limits of 35

mph or greater and/or AADTs of 9,000

or greater. Median islands may also be

a candidate treatment for uncontrolled

pedestrian crossings on 3-lane or 2-lane

roads, especially where the street is wide

and/or where vehicle speed or volumes are

moderate to high. Consideration should be

given to creating a two-stage crossing with

the island to encourage pedestrians to cross

one direction of trafﬁc at a time and look

towards oncoming trafﬁc before completing

the second part of the crossing. The

minimum pedestrian refuge island width is

approximately 6 feet. MUTCD Section 3B.10—

Approach Markings for Obstructions

, Section

3B.18—

Crosswalk Markings

, and Section

3B.23—

Curb Markings

provide additional

information.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

A PHB head consists of two red lenses

above a single yellow lens, and is used in

conjunction with pedestrian signal heads

installed at each end of a marked crosswalk.

Figure 6 shows a rendering of a PHB. The PHB

has been referred to as the High-Intensity

Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK), but the

MUTCD refers to this device as the PHB.

Unlike a trafﬁc signal, the PHB rests in dark

until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton

or other form of detection. When activated,

the beacon displays a sequence of ﬂashing

and solid lights that control vehicular

trafﬁc while the pedestrian signal heads

indicate the pedestrian walk interval and a

pedestrian clearance interval.

The PHB should meet the installation

guidelines—based on speed, pedestrian

volume, vehicular volume, and crossing

length—as provided in Section 4F.01 of the

MUTCD (See Figure 4F-1 for speeds of 35 mph

or less; Figure 4F-2 for speeds greater than 35

mph). Research indicates that PHBs are most

effective at roads with three or more lanes

that have AADTs above 9,000. PHBs should

be strongly considered for all midblock

crossings where the roadway speed limits

are equal to or greater than 40 mph. Refer

to Table 1 for other conditions where PHBs

should be strongly considered. It should be

noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both

installed at the same crossing location.

PHBs have also been installed successfully

at intersections under certain conditions.

Since the current MUTCD guidance is to

locate PHBs at least 100 feet away from

an intersection, engineering judgment/

engineering study must be carefully applied if

considering an installation at an intersection.

Figure 6. Rendering of a PHB.

Source: FHWA STEP Countermeasure Tech Sheets.

(Note: Drawing not to scale.)

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Road Diet

A road diet reconﬁgures the roadway. A

frequently-implemented Road Diet involves

converting a 4-lane, undivided roadway into

a 3-lane roadway with a center turn lane. This

is a candidate treatment for any undivided

road with wide travel lanes or multiple lanes

that can be narrowed or repurposed to

improve pedestrian crossing safety.

After conducting a trafﬁc analysis to

consider its feasibility, the agency may

determine that a Road Diet is a good

candidate for use on roads with four

or more lanes and trafﬁc volumes of

approximately 20,000 or less. In some cases,

agencies have successfully implemented

Road Diets on roads with AADTs of up

to 25,000. By reducing the width of the

roadway, pedestrians beneﬁt from shorter

crossing distances and often bike lanes or

streetscape features can be added. Road

Diets are often effectively accomplished

during pavement resurfacing.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

(RRFB)

An RRFB is a pedestrian-actuated conspicuity

enhancement used in combination with a

pedestrian, school, or trail crossing warning

sign to improve safety at uncontrolled,

marked crosswalks. The device includes two

rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each

with an LED-array-based light source, that

ﬂash with high frequency when activated.

RRFBs may be used to enhance the

conspicuity of standard pedestrian

and school crossing warning signs at

uncontrolled marked crosswalks. RRFBs

are placed on both ends of a crosswalk.

If the crosswalk contains a pedestrian

refuge island or other type of median, an

RRFB should be placed to the right of the

crosswalk and on the median (instead

of the left side of the crosswalk). The

RRFB's irregular ﬂashing pattern pattern

is unlit when not activated and can be

activated manually by pedestrians using

a push button or passively by a pedestrian

detection system. This device is not currently

included in the MUTCD, but FHWA has

issued Interim Approval 21 (IA-21) for the use

of the RRFB. State and local agencies must

request and receive permission to use this

interim approval before they can use the

RRFB. IA-21 provides additional information

about the conditions of use, including

dimensions, placement, and ﬂashing

requirements. IA-21 does not provide

guidance or criteria based on number of

lanes, speed, or trafﬁc volumes.

The RRFB is a treatment option at many

types of established pedestrian crossings.

Research indicates RRFBs can result in

motorist yielding rates as high as 98 percent

at marked crosswalks. However, yielding

rates as low as 19 percent have also been

noted. Compliance rates varied most per

the city location, posted speed limit, crossing

distance, and whether the road was one-

or two-way.

RRFBs are particularly effective

at multilane crossings with speed limits less

than 40 mph. Consider the PHB instead

of RRFBs for roadways with higher speeds.

Table 1 provides speciﬁc conditions where

practitioner s should strongly c onsid er the PH B

instead of the RRFB.

Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, R. Avelar, and T. Lindheimer.

Will You Stop for Me? Roadway Design and Traffic Control Device Influences on Drivers Yielding to

Pedestrians in a Crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon.

Report No. TTI-CTS-0010. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. June

2016. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-CTS-0010.pdf

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

RESOURCES

PEDSAFE, Pedestrian Safety Guide and

Countermeasure Selection System

This online tool includes links to research studies,

crash reduction statistics, and case studies for

nearly 70 pedestrian safety countermeasures.

Its Countermeasure Selection Tool provides

countermeasure recommendations for uncontrolled

crossing locations based upon variables such as

AADT, vehicle speed, and number of lanes.

Manual on Uniform Trafﬁc Control Devices (MUTCD)

This manual provides transportation engineers and

planners with detailed guidance for the design

and application of trafﬁc control devices, including

signage, roadway markings, and intersection controls.

Refer to the speciﬁc sections of the MUTCD listed in

the countermeasure descriptions and consult State-

level supplements for additional information.

FHWA Road Diet Desk Reference (2015)

This resource includes sample policy, case studies,

and design guidance for agencies and decision-

makers considering Road Diets. The beneﬁts of Road

Diets include reducing vehicle speeds, reducing

number of lanes to cross, and allocating space for

pedestrian refuge islands.

Highway Safety Manual

This manual provides detailed guidance for the

collection, analysis, and evaluation of roadway

crash data, as well as related CMFs and treatment

selection guidance.

FHWA Design Resource Index

This resource directs practitioners to the speciﬁc

location of information about pedestrian and bicycle

treatments or countermeasures, across various

design guidelines published by organizations such as

AASHTO, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and

National Association of City Transportation Ofﬁcials.

Informational Brief: Treatments for Uncontrolled

Marked Crosswalks (2017)

FHWA provided this information about optional

treatments for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

locations.

TCRP REPORT 112/NCHRP REPORT 562: Improving

Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006)

This document recommends treatments to improve

safety for pedestrians crossing high-volume, high-

speed roadways at unsignalized intersections,

with particular focus on roadways served by public

transportation.

NHTSA "A Primer for Highway Safety Professionals"

(2016)

This resource outlines a comprehensive approach

to improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians

and offers a summary of the most frequently used

engineering, enforcement, and education safety

measures. The resource identiﬁes how certain

treatments may be placed in relation to other

treatments, such as the coordinated installation of a

pedestrian refuge island and lighting.

CMF Clearinghouse

The CMF Clearinghouse is an online database of

countermeasures and corresponding CMFs. The

database describes the conﬁdence of the study that

produced the CMF with an assigned “star quality

rating.” The clearinghouse includes CMFs for most

of the STEP countermeasures.

NCHRP Report 841: Development of CMFs for

Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

(2017)

This report describes the safety beneﬁts and CMFs

for four types of pedestrian crossing treatments—

rectangular rapid ﬂashing beacons, PHBs,

pedestrian refuge islands, and advance crosswalk

signs and pavement markings.

NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian

Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016)

This is a compilation of existing practices regarding

the selection and implementation of pedestrian

crossing improvements, as well as a literature

review of research on more than 25 pedestrian

crossing treatments.

Consult Design and Installation Resources

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section identiﬁes additional resources that reﬁne countermeasure options for priority sites. The following are

important considerations for this step:

» Consult the MUTCD for recommendations for signage and roadway markings for all countermeasures.

» Review the MUTCD (Part 4) for more considerations, including pedestrian volumes and vehicle operating speeds,

for the installation of PHBs.

» Consult local and national design guidance for the preferred width and placement of these countermeasures.

Review Agency Design Guidelines

The agency can review and, if needed,

enhance local guidance for trafﬁc engineers

and roadway designers to follow when

installing countermeasures. The agency’s

roadway design manual can include details,

such as design and installation guidance,

for each of the countermeasure options.

The agency may also consider creating

additional warrant and threshold guidance

for countermeasures such as the Road Diet,

considering local conditions.

Consult the MUTCD

The agency may focus on three parts of the

MUTCD for additional considerations when

installing countermeasures:

» Part 2: Signs.

» Part 3: Markings.

» Part 4: Highway Trafﬁc Signals (includes

detailed guidance for installing Pedestrian

Hybrid Beacons based on trafﬁc speeds,

trafﬁc volumes, and pedestrian volumes).

RESOURCE

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition (2004)

This guide provides recommendations for the planning, design, and operation of accommodations for

pedestrians on public rights-of-way. This guide also discusses the impact of land use and site design on

pedestrian safety and connectivity.

Consult Design and

Installation Resources

Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes possible options for funding and implementation of the countermeasures described in this

guide. The following are important considerations for this step:

» Review the State's HSIP process for considering and funding pedestrian crossing countermeasures.

» Review local trafﬁc calming and land development policies for opportunities to install pedestrian crossing

countermeasures.

» Consider the costs to design, install, and maintain selected countermeasures.

» Collect usage and crash data for at least three years after countermeasures are installed at priority sites.

» Continue to monitor priority sites not funded for countermeasure installation.

» Provide information to the public about planned countermeasure projects. Information should address the safety

beneﬁts and possible impacts to trafﬁc operations.

Consider Funding Options

A major consideration when selecting a safety

project or program is identifying and securing

the funding to design, construct, operate,

and maintain the project or program. FHWA,

NHTSA, and other Federal agencies distribute

funding to States and other jurisdictions

for transportation safety projects. If local

funding is scarce, agencies may approach

the State Departments of Transportation for

safety improvement funding consideration.

Some projects may require a local match to

leverage State or Federal dollars. The agency

may consider the following steps:

» Submit high-priority pedestrian crash

locations as HSIP projects.

» Consider other State safety funding

programs for low-cost pedestrian safety

improvements.

» Address gaps in pedestrian

accommodations through other State

or Federal funding programs such as

Transportation Alternatives Program,

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, and

Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG).

Identify Opportunities and

Monitor Outcomes

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes

Identify Opportunities for

Successful Implementation

The agency can look beyond safety-focused

funding programs to help implement

countermeasures. By incorporating safety

treatments into roadway maintenance

or trafﬁc operation projects, the agency

can realize cost savings. For example, the

agency should consider how resurfacing

and operational projects may include

countermeasures such as Road Diets and

pedestrian crossing signal improvements.

The agency can also engage the

community prior to programing the project.

The treatments are likely to affect trafﬁc

operations, and the public may respond

negatively to the change without sufﬁcient

notice and education. The agency can

develop public education materials

describing the beneﬁts and costs of the

countermeasures. Law enforcement,

pedestrian safety advocates, public health

ofﬁcials, and other community partners may

be able to help distribute the materials.

It is important for the agency to work

with local partners to coordinate early

in the process of designing or improving

a roadway to identify opportunities for

improved pedestrian crossing safety. If the

agency has a Complete Streets policy in

place, the policy describes how pedestrian

crossing treatments and sidewalks are

incorporated into roadway projects.

Roadway project design should identify

locations and countermeasure options for

pedestrian crossings. Developing preliminary

cost estimates early for these improvements

will help local partners make decisions about

funding for pedestrian crossing treatments.

The agency can also work with land

developers to incorporate pedestrian

crossing treatments into site plans and

connecting roadways. Land development

policies provide an opportunity to integrate

pedestrian and multimodal improvements,

connectivity, and accommodations

into site plans and nearby roadways.

The agency can examine development

policies or ordinances for requirements to

install sidewalks and pedestrian crossing

treatments.

Construct Improvements

The public may have questions about the

improvements as construction activities

begin. The agency should post information

about the improvements and a timeline for

construction to a public-facing website and

consider issuing a press release about the

project. The agency should also provide

detailed information to neighbors and

business owners impacted by construction

activities about the project. Pedestrians will

maintain access through the work zone area

by way of temporary walkways, curb ramps,

and trafﬁc control signage.

The agency may consider phasing in the

improvements. For example, a refuge

island can be implemented initially by

pavement markings and ﬂexible delineators

in the center lane. The agency can later

add a raised median and appropriate

landscaping at the refuge island.

Monitor Results of Implementation

The agency should consider monitoring

the impacts of countermeasures per

deﬁned performance measures. Speciﬁc

performance measures can be outlined

in plans, such as a PSAP. The PSAP may

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes

also list priority locations and proposed

countermeasures.

The ﬁrst measure of success for a project or

program is public support. States and local

governments can prepare public information

for countermeasures that are new to the

community or may change trafﬁc patterns.

Public information about the projects may

describe the crash history or risks noted

at the site, as well as the beneﬁts of the

proposed countermeasure.

States and local government can also

collect and analyze crash and trafﬁc data

related to countermeasure sites for at least 3

years following the installation of the project.

This time allows for data to be collected to

compare crash rates and severity with the

same data collected before the installation.

The agency should work with their State HSIP

to evaluate projects by continuing to collect

data, and it is essential that the treatment

installation date be documented. In addition

to the safety performance of the treatment,

agency staff should consider assessing the

durability and life cycle maintenance needs

for in-service devices.

In addition to crash data, it is important

to collect data on pedestrian volumes,

trafﬁc speeds, and interactions between

pedestrians and drivers. Pedestrian volume

data can help demonstrate the beneﬁts

of implementing safety countermeasures.

Information about trafﬁc speeds and

behaviors also help conﬁrm the effectiveness

of installing these countermeasures. As

more pedestrian crossing treatments are

implemented, State and local agencies can

use these data to research the effectiveness

of countermeasures and best practices for

installation. Evaluation also helps an agency

demonstrate the value of the investment in

countermeasures to community leaders and

the public.

RESOURCES

FHWA Federal-aid Program Administration

This website includes links to guidance for local and

State governments administering federally-funded

projects, such as those funded by HSIP or STBG.

FHWA Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and

Bicycle Performance Measures (2016)

This resource identiﬁes a wide variety of potential

metrics for setting goals, prioritizing projects and

evaluating outcomes of bicycle and pedestrian plans,

including plans for pedestrian safety improvements.

Performance measures may include pedestrian

levels of service or pedestrian fatality rates.

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding

Opportunities Summary (2016)

This resource includes a matrix comparing eligibility

of various federal transportation funding programs

for different types of bicycle and pedestrian projects.

NCHRP Report 803: Pedestrian and Bicycle

Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans

Priority Tool Guidebook (2015)

This resource includes an interactive tool and

guidance to help agencies prioritize pedestrian

and bicycle improvements, including safety

projects, either as standalone or incidental to a

roadway project.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Glossary

Annual Average Daily Trafﬁc (AADT)

The total volume of trafﬁc passing a point

or segment of a highway facility in both

directions for one year divided by the

number of days in the year.

Average Daily Trafﬁc (ADT)

The average 24-hour volume of trafﬁc

passing a point or segment of a highway in

both directions.

Complete Streets

Complete Streets are designed and

operated to enable safe access for all users,

including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists,

and transit riders of all ages and abilities.

(Smart Growth America, National Complete

Streets Coalition.)

Controlled pedestrian crossing

A pedestrian crossing where motorists are

required to stop by either a STOP sign, trafﬁc

signal, or other trafﬁc control device.

Crash modiﬁcation factor (CMF)

A multiplicative factor used to compute

the expected number of crashes after

implementing a given countermeasure. If

available, calibrated or locally developed

State estimates may provide a better

estimate of effects for the State. (Crash

Modiﬁcation Factors Clearinghouse.)

Crash reduction factor (CRF)

The percentage crash reduction that might

be expected after implementing a given

countermeasure at a speciﬁc site.

Curb extensions

A roadway edge treatment where a curb

line is bulbed out toward the middle of the

roadway to narrow the width of the street.

Curb extensions are sometimes called

“neckdowns.”

Highway Safety Improvement Program

(HSIP)

A Federal-aid program with the purpose

to achieve a signiﬁcant reduction in trafﬁc

fatalities and serious injuries on all public

roads, including non-State-owned roads

and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires

a data-driven, strategic approach to

improving highway safety on all public roads

with a focus on performance. (FHWA.)

High visibility crosswalk

A pedestrian crossing location marked

by patterns such as zebra, ladder, or

continental markings as described by the

MUTCD.

Marked crosswalk

A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by

white crosswalk pavement markings.

Parking restriction

Parking restriction can include the removal of

parking space markings, installation of new

“parking prohibition” pavement markings or

curb paint, and signs.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Glossary

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

A trafﬁc control device with a face that

consists of two red lenses above a single

yellow lens. Unlike a trafﬁc signal, the PHB

rests in dark until a pedestrian activates it via

pushbutton or other form of detection.

Raised crosswalk

Raised crosswalks are ramped speed tables

spanning the entire width of the roadway,

often placed at midblock crossing locations.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

(RRFB)

RRFBs are pedestrian-actuated conspicuity

enhancements used in combination with a

pedestrian, school, or trail crossing warning

sign to improve safety at uncontrolled,

marked crosswalks. The device includes

two rectangular-shaped yellow indications,

each with an LED-array-based light source,

that ﬂash with high frequency when

activated. RRFBs are placed on both ends

of a crosswalk. If the crosswalk contains a

pedestrian refuge island or other type of

median, an RRFB should be placed to the

right of the crosswalk and on the median

(instead of the left side of the crosswalk).

The ﬂashing pattern is pedestrian-activated

by pushbuttons or automated detection

and is unlit when not activated.

Refuge island

A median with a refuge area that is

intended to help protect pedestrians who

are crossing the road. This countermeasure

is sometimes referred to as a crossing island

or pedestrian island.

Road Diet

A roadway reconﬁguration resulting in a

reduction in the number of travel lanes.

The space gained by eliminating lanes

is typically used for other uses and travel

modes. (FHWA.)

Road Safety Audit (RSA)

A formal examination of an existing or future

road or intersection by a multidisciplinary

team. It qualitatively estimates and reports

on potential road safety issues and identiﬁes

opportunities for improvements in safety for

all road users. (FHWA.)

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD)

TZD is a trafﬁc safety framework that seeks

to eliminate highway fatalities by engaging

diverse safety partners and technology to

address trafﬁc safety culture. (See also:

Vision Zero.)

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

An established pedestrian crossing that

does not include a trafﬁc signal, beacon, or

STOP sign to require that motor vehicles stop

before entering the crosswalk.

Vehicle queue

A line of stopped vehicles in a single travel

lane, commonly caused by trafﬁc control at

an intersection.

Vision Zero (VZ)

Similar to TZD, Vision Zero is a vision to

eliminate trafﬁc fatalities and serious injuries

within the transportation system. VZ employs

comprehensive strategies to address

roadway design, trafﬁc behavior, and law

enforcement.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution

Supporting Pedestrian Safety

Agency policies respond to a need or opportunity, such as pedestrian safety crash and

fatality trends. A resolution may help decision-makers, including elected ofﬁcials or appointed

commissioners, better understand the need for pedestrian crash countermeasure policy or

design guidance.

The following is a list of possible elements for a local or Statewide resolution in support of a

pedestrian crossing policy. These elements may be developed into “Whereas” statements

or be included as explanatory text introducing the policy. The list of resolution elements is

presented as four categories covering a spectrum of pedestrian safety issues.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

1. Example statistics that may

raise awareness of pedestrian

safety trends.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas the number of pedestrian

crashes per year and the percent of

pedestrian fatalities out of all trafﬁc

fatalities in [

State

] demonstrate the

need for improved pedestrian safety at

roadway crossings…”

» Percent pedestrian fatalities of total trafﬁc

fatalities.

» Number of total pedestrian crashes/

fatalities per year.

» Percent of pedestrian crashes occurring

outside the intersection.

2. List of broad issues that

agencies commonly consider

when discussing pedestrian safety

and crash countermeasures.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [

Agency/State

] recognizes

that safety is a priority for all road users,

and improvements to pedestrian safety

often improve safety for all road users…”

» Safety is a priority for all road users.

» Crossings are essential to a complete

network for pedestrian mobility.

» Pedestrian safety is part of overall quality

of life and improved public health.

» Improvements to pedestrian safety often

improve safety for all road users.

» Pedestrian countermeasures are genreally

lower-cost treatments.

» Many pedestrian crash countermeasures

have been evaluated as highly effective.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

3. List of example planning

documents that frequently

discuss Statewide pedestrian

safety concerns and may include

statistics or other compelling

reasons for implementing

pedestrian crossing treatments.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [

State

]'s Strategic Highway

Safety Plan addresses pedestrian safety

as an emphasis area…”

» State Strategic Highway Safety Plan

includes pedestrian safety as an emphasis

area.

» State Highway Safety Plan includes

pedestrian safety programs or

enforcement support.

» State Roadway Design Manual includes

guidance for countermeasure design.

» Highway Safety Improvement Program

includes safety performance targets for

non-motorists.

4. List of Statewide opportunities

for promoting, planning, and

funding the construction of

pedestrian crossing treatments.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [

Agency

]'s Highway Safety

Improvement Program includes

speciﬁc funding for pedestrian crash

countermeasures…”

» Highway Safety Improvement Program

includes speciﬁc focus or funding for

pedestrian crash countermeasures.

» Complete Streets Policy directs the

inclusion of pedestrian accommodations

as part of other transportation projects.

» Vision Zero or Towards Zero Deaths

initiative strives to reduce or eliminate

all trafﬁc-related fatalities, including

pedestrians.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table

Table 3. CRFs and CMFs by countermeasure.

Countermeasure CRF CMF Basis Reference

Crosswalk visibility enhancement¹ — — — —

Advance STOP/YIELD signs and

markings

25% 0.75 Pedestrian crashes² Zegeer, et. al. 2017

Add overhead lighting 23% 0.77 Total injury crashes Harkey, et. al. 2008

High-visibility marking³ 48% 0.52 Pedestrian crashes Chen, et. al., 2012

High-visibility markings (school zone)³ 37% 0.63 Pedestrian crashes Feldman, et. al. 2010

Parking restriction on crosswalk

approach

30% 0.70 Pedestrian crashes Gan, et. al., 2005

In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign UNK UNK N/A N/A

Curb extension UNK UNK N/A N/A

Raised crosswalk (speed tables)

45% 0.55 Pedestrian crashes

Elvik, et. al., 2004

30% 0.70 Vehicle crashes

Pedestrian refuge island 32% 0.68 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al., 2017

PHB 55% 0.45 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al., 2017

Road Diet – Urban area 19% 0.81 Total crashes Pawlovich, et. al., 2006

Road Diet – Suburban area 47% 0.53 Total crashes Persaud, et. al., 2010

RRFB 47% 0.53 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al. 2017

¹This category of countermeasure includes treatments which may improve the visibility between the motorist and the crossing pedestrian.

²Refers to pedestrian street crossing crashes, and does not include pedestrians walking along the road crashes or “unusual” crash types.

³The effects of high-visibility pavement markings (e.g., ladder, continental crosswalk markings) in the “after” period is compared to pedestrian

crashes with parallel line markings in the “before” period.

References

1. Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith,

C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon,

E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten.

NCHRP Report

841: Development of Crash Modiﬁcation Factors

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments.

NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington,

DC, 2017.

2. Harkey, D.L., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, F. Council, K.

Eccles, N. Leﬂer, F. Gross, B. Persaud, C. Lyon,

E. Hauer, and J. Bonneson.

NCHRP Report 617:

Accident Modiﬁcation Factors for Trafﬁc Engineering

and ITS Improvements

. NCHRP, Transportation

Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008.

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table

3. Chen, L., C. Chen, R. Ewing, C.E. McKnight, R.

Srinivasan, and M. Roe. “Safety Countermeasures

and Crash Reduction in New York City—Experience

and Lessons Learned."

Accident Analysis and

Prevention

, 2012.

4. Feldman, M., J. Manzi, and M. Mitman. "An

Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of the Safety Effects

of High-Visibility School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San

Francisco, California."

Transportation Research

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research

Board,

No. 2198, Transportation Research Board,

Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 8-14.

5. Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. "Update of Florida

Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures

to Improve the Development of District Safety

Improvement Projects." Final report. Florida

Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2005.

6. Elvik, R., P. Christensen, and A. Amundsen. "Speed

and Road Accidents An Evaluation of the Power

Model." Transportokonomisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway,

2004.

7. Pawlovich, M.D., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch.

"Iowa's Experience with Road Diet Measures—Use

of Bayesian Approach to Assess Impacts on Crash

Frequencies and Crash Rates."

Transportation

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation

Research Board,

No. 1953, Transportation Research

Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.

8. Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bhim.

"Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes

approaches for before–after road safety evaluations."

Accident Analysis & Prevention

, Volume 42, Issue 1,

2010, pp. 38-43.

FHWA-SA-17-072

July 2018, Updated