AUGUST 2016

ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

& REDUCING CONFLICTS
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-HEP-16-055

2. Government Accession No.

N/A

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

N/A

4. Title and Subtitle

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts

5. Report Date

August 2016

6. Performing Organization Code

N/A

7. Author(s)

Porter, C.; Danila, M.; Fink, C; Toole, J.; Mongelli, E.; Schultheiss, W.

8. Performing Organization Report No.

N/A

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

100 CambridgePark Drive Suite 400

Cambridge, MA 02140

Toole Design Group, Inc.

8484 Georgia Avenue, Suite 800, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

N/A

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-11-D-00030 

Tasks 5008 and 5009

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

U.S Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Planning and Design Resource

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA/HEPH-10

15. Supplementary Notes

This product combines work under contract DTFH61-11-D-00030 Task 5008 (Flexibility in Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Facility Design) and Task 5009 (Multimodal Conflict Points).

16. Abstract

Multimodal transportation networks provide access to jobs, education, health care, recreation, transit, and other 

essential services in urban, suburban, and rural areas throughout the United States. Interconnected pedestrian and 

bicycle infrastructure makes walking and bicycling a viable transportation choice for everyone and this contributes to 

the health, equity, and quality of life of our communities.

This publication is a resource for practitioners seeking to build multimodal transportation networks. The publication 

highlights ways that planners and designers can apply the design flexibility found in current national design guidance to 

address common roadway design challenges and barriers. It focuses on reducing multimodal conflicts and achieving 

connected networks so that walking and bicycling are safe, comfortable, and attractive options for people of all ages 

and abilities.

This resource includes 24 design topics, organized into two themes. The 12 design topics in Part 1 focus on design 

flexibility. The 12 topics in Part 2 focus on measures to reduce conflicts between modes. Each design topic is four 

pages in length and includes relevant case studies and references to appropriate design guidelines.

This document covers a wide range of solutions to achieve multimodal transportation networks. It includes solutions for 

streets and intersections, and has information about shared use paths and other trails that can serve both transportation 

and recreation purposes. It includes information about crossing main streets, bridges and underpasses, and about 

interactions with freight and transit. This resource addresses common concerns and perceived barriers among 

planning and design professionals and provides specific information about flexible design treatments and approaches.

17. Key Words

Bike, bicycle, pedestrian, walking, 

multimodal, network, shared use path, 

sidewalk, design flexibility

18. Distribution Statement

This document is available to the public on the FHWA website at: http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

122

22. Price

N/A

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS i

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.

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 this 

document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and 

accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or 

regulation.

Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real world existing conditions; 

they are not limited to best practices or approved designs or behaviors and in some cases may reflect 

conditions that are not recommended.

Publication Number: FHWA-HEP-16-055
ii ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS

Bill Bryant, City of Seattle, WA

Darren Buck, District of Columbia Department of Transportation

Kristin Haldeman, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

(Washington, DC)

Dean Leadbetter, North Carolina Department of Transportation

Jeffrey Owen, TriMet (Portland, OR)

Matthew Roe, National Association of City Transportation Officials 

(NACTO)

Gus Scheerbaum, City of Philadelphia, PA

George Branyan, District of Columbia Department of Transportation 

Patricia Bush, American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

Bill Cowern, City of Boulder, CO

Peter Koonce, City of Portland, OR

Rosa Kozub, New Mexico Department of Transportation

Michael Moule, County of Kaua’i, HI

Arthur Ross, City of Madison, WI

Cara Seiderman, City of Cambridge, MA

Lisa Wilson, Utah Department of Transportation

Arizona DOT

Massachusetts DOT

Oregon DOT

Vermont AOT

Washington State DOT

MBTA (Boston, MA)

WMATA (Washington, DC)

Burlington County, NJ

Arlington Public Schools (Arlington, VA)

Village of Aldie, VA

City of Austin, TX

City of Berkeley, CA

City of Boston, MA

City of Cambridge, MA

City of Charlotte, NC

City of Chicago, IL

Town of Danville, VT

City of Davis, CA

City of Fort Collins, CO

City of Golden, CO

City of Jacksonville Beach, FL

City of Madison, WI

Town of Middleburg, VA

City of Minneapolis, MN

City of New York, NY

City of Orlando, FL

City of Portland, OR

City of San Francisco, CA

City of Seattle, WA

City of Sisters, OR

City of Sulphur Springs, TX

Village of Upperville, VA

Washington, DC

City of West Palm Beach, FL

Oregon State University (Corvallis, OR)

Pinellas Trails, Inc. (Pinellas County, FL)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

FHWA PROJECT MANAGERS AND TECHNICAL LEADS

Dan Goodman, Christopher Douwes, Wesley Blount, Elizabeth Hilton, Gabe Rousseau, Shari Schaftlein, Bruce Friedman, Dave Kirschner

PHOTOGRAPHS

All photographs by Toole Design Group unless otherwise noted.

CONSULTANT TEAM

Toole Design Group: Michelle Danila, Christina Fink, Jennifer Toole, Eric Mongelli, Bill Schultheiss

Heather Deutsch, Darren Flusche, Pete Robie, John McCarthy, Nathaniel Fink, Nick Schmidt, Carol Kachadoorian, Jessica Mortell

Cambridge Systematics: Chris Porter

SPECIAL THANKS

The project team would like to thank staff at the following agencies for sharing their time and expertise:

TECHNICAL WORK GROUP
ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION

11 PART 1: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

13 DESIGN CRITERIA AND LANE WIDTH

17 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

21 TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED

25 TRANSITIONS TO MAIN STREETS

29 ROAD DIETS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

33 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS

37 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

41 PAVED SHOULDERS

45 SEPARATED BIKE LANES

49 BUS STOPS

53 BRIDGE DESIGN

57 SLOW STREETS

61 PART 2: REDUCING CONFLICTS

63 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY

67 SCHOOL ACCESS

71 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONS

75 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO NEW TRANSIT STATIONS

79 TRANSIT CONFLICTS

83 FREIGHT INTERACTION

87 ACCESSIBILITY

91 TURNING VEHICLES

95 SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS

99 SHARED USE PATHS

103 MIDBLOCK PATH INTERSECTIONS

107 SHARED STREETS

111 CONCLUSION
iv ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS

CASE STUDIES: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

PAGE CASE STUDY LOCATION DESIGN TOPIC

16

Smart Transportation Guidebook New Jersey/Pennsylvania

Design Criteria and 

Lane Width Gracy Farms Lane Road Diet Austin, TX

Massachusetts Avenue Lane Diet Boston, MA

20

Corner Curb Radii—Better Streets Plan San Francisco, CA

Intersection 

Geometry Mountable Truck Aprons Portland, OR

Outside Truck Aprons Burlington County, NJ

24

South Golden Road Golden, CO

Traffic Calming and 

Design Speed Olive Avenue West Palm Beach, FL

Arterial Slow Zone Program New York City, NY

28

Traffic Calming Measures Rte. 50 Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville, VA

Transitions to

Main Streets Cascades Avenue Improvement Project Sisters, OR

Danville Transportation Enhancement Project Danville, VT

32

W Lawrence Avenue Chicago, IL

Road Diets and 

Traffic Analysis Lawyers Road Reston, VA

Stone Way North Seattle, WA

36

I Street at Makemie Place, SW Washington, DC

Enhanced Crossing 

Treatments Improvement Plan for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks Seattle, WA

SE Bush Street and 122nd Avenue Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Portland, OR

40

2nd Avenue Protected Pedestrian/Bicycle Phase Seattle, WA

Signalized 

Intersections Leading Pedestrian Intervals Washington, DC

Valencia Street Green Wave San Francisco, CA

44

Rumble Strip Policy Washington State 

Paved Shoulders as Bicycle Accommodations Arizona Paved Shoulders

11-Foot Lane Width Standard Vermont

48

Southwest Moody Avenue Separated Bike Lane Portland, OR

Separated 

Bike Lanes Polk Street Separated Bike Lane San Francisco, CA

Western Avenue Separated Bike Lane Cambridge, MA

52

Stop Request Lights Seattle, WA

Bus Stops

Bus Stop Improvement Program Montgomery County, MD

56

Building Tunnels for Future Trails Minneapolis, MN

Bridge Accommodation and Widths Portland, OR Bridge Design

Bridge Approach Ramps West Palm Beach, FL

56

Heritage Square Sulphur Springs, TX

5th Street NE Bicycle Boulevard Minneapolis, MN Slow Streets

Neighborhood Greenway Program Portland, OR
ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS v

CASE STUDIES: REDUCING CONFLICTS

PAGE CASE STUDY LOCATION DESIGN TOPIC

66

Bicycle Master Plan Fort Collins, CO

Network Connectivity

Street Connectivity Policy Charlotte, NC

70 Discovery Elementary School Arlington, VA School Access

74

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority Access Plan Washington, DC Metro Area Multimodal Access to 

Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Bicycle Parking Existing Transit Stations Boston, MA Metro Area

78

Wiehle-Reston East Metrorail Station Reston, VA Multimodal Access to 

New Transit Stations Central Station Utrecht, The Netherlands

82

Directing Bikes Across Streetcar Tracks Boston, MA

Transit Conflicts

Floating Bus Stop Seattle, WA

86

Off-Hour Delivery Program New York City, NY

Freight Interaction

Truck Sideguards Boston, MA

89

Berkeley 2010 Pedestrian Master Plan Berkeley, CA

Accessibility

Oregon State University Accessibility Plan Corvallis, OR

94

Massachusetts Avenue at Beacon Street Boston, MA

Turning Vehicles

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis Seattle, WA

98

Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide Massachusetts Separated Bike Lanes at 

Intersections Protected Intersection Davis, CA

102

Separated Paths Pinellas Trail, FL

Shared Use Paths

Marked Separation Minneapolis, MN

106

Raised Trail Crossing Burke-Gilman Trail Seattle, WA Midblock Path 

Intersections Prioritized Pathway Capital City Trail Madison, WI

110

Winthrop Street Cambridge, MA

Shared Streets

First Street North Jacksonville Beach, FL
vi ACHIEVING MULTIMODAL NETWORKS: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCING CONFLICTS

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION
2 INTRODUCTION

RELATED RESOURCE:

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE

PERFORMANCE MEASURES

FHWA’s Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Performance Measures is intended 

to help communities integrate pedestrian and 

bicycle transportation in their ongoing performance 

management activities. It highlights a broad range of 

ways that walking and bicycling investments, activity, 

and impacts can be measured and documents 

how these measures relate to goals identified in a 

community’s planning process. It discusses how the 

measures can be tracked and what data are required, 

while also identifying examples of communities that 

are currently using the respective measures in their 

planning process. The report highlights resources 

for developing measures to facilitate high-quality 

performance based planning and is available at 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian.

FOR DEVELOPING PEDESTRIAN & 

BICYCLE PERFORMANCE MEASURES

MARCH

2016

INTRODUCTION

Multimodal transportation networks provide access to jobs, 

education, health care, and other essential services in urban, 

suburban, and rural areas throughout the United States. 

Interconnected pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure makes 

walking and bicycling a viable transportation choice for 

everyone and this contributes to the health, equity, and quality 

of life of our communities.

This publication is intended to be a resource for practitioners 

seeking to build multimodal transportation networks. 

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility 

and Reducing Conflicts highlights ways that planners and 

designers can apply the design flexibility found in current 

national design guidance to address common roadway design 

challenges and barriers. It focuses on reducing multimodal 

conflicts and achieving connected networks so that walking 

and bicycling are safe, comfortable, and attractive options for 

people of all ages and abilities.

OBJECTIVES

In many communities, accommodating and encouraging 

walking and bicycling requires retrofitting an existing 

transportation system with constrained rights-of-way to 

include new or enhanced pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. 

Greater awareness of the flexibility and versatility available 

in national guidance will help designers overcome many 

challenges related to both new and retrofit projects. Designers 

must also manage conflicts between modes. Pedestrians are 

the most vulnerable roadway user because they are at the 

greatest risk of injury or death in a collision with someone 

traveling by any other mode. Bicyclists generally travel at 

slower speeds than motor vehicles and are inherently more 

vulnerable in the event of a crash with a car, truck, or transit 

vehicle. Designers need practical information based on realworld scenarios to address a variety of conflicts that occur 

between different modes.

This resource is intended to:

1. Equip planners, designers, and policy makers with 

information on designing safer, more comfortable, and 

accessible communities so that walking and wheeling 

are viable transportation choices for everyone, including 

seniors, children, and people with visual, mobility and 

other disabilities.

2. Equip planners, designers, and policy makers with 

information on designing safer, more comfortable, and 

connected transportation networks to make bicycling a 

viable transportation choice for people of all ages and 

abilities.

3. Address common concerns and perceived barriers 

among design professionals concerned about liability 

when designing pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and

4. Direct planners and designers to existing national 

guidelines that provide specific information about flexible 

design treatments and approaches.

STUDY PROCESS

A comprehensive literature review explored the flexibility 

that exists within current guidelines and standards, and 

documented relevant guidelines, plans, and research for 

addressing multimodal conflict points. A Technical Work 

Group, consisting of practitioners from throughout the U.S., 

provided guidance, input, and review throughout the project. 

Design topics were selected based on needs identified by the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), State Departments of 

Transportation, and local practitioners, as well as input from 

the Technical Work Group. Additional stakeholder outreach 

included targeted interviews to gather information on case 

studies, common challenges, and best practices. 
INTRODUCTION 3

DESIGN TOPICS

This resource includes 24 design topics, organized into 

2 themes. The 12 design topics in Part 1 focus on design 

flexibility. The 12 topics in Part 2 focus on measures to reduce 

conflicts between modes. Each design topic is four pages in 

length and includes relevant case studies and references to 

appropriate design guidelines.

PART 1: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

• Design Criteria and Lane Width – flexibility in the selection 

of design criteria, including vehicular lane width.

• Intersection Geometry – flexibility in design-vehicle 

selection and the tolerance for vehicle encroachment; and 

best practices to create compact intersections.

• Traffic Calming and Design Speed – common 

misconceptions in traffic calming and the selection of 

design speed. 

• Transitions to Main Streets – flexibility in creating a 

context-sensitive street design where a rural highway 

travels through a small town. 

• Road Diets and Traffic Analysis – flexibility in volume 

thresholds, level of service thresholds, assumptions for 

traffic projections, and traffic analysis

• Enhanced Crossing Treatments – flexibility in marking a 

crosswalk, completing a warrant study for beacons and 

traffic signals, and applying additional crossing treatments. 

• Signalized Intersections – flexibility in intersection design 

to safely accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. 

• Paved Shoulders – flexibility in the use and purpose of 

shoulders, paving shoulders as part of various project 

types, and the design and placement of rumble strips. 

• Separated Bike Lanes – flexibility in the design of 

separated bike lanes.

• Bus Stops – flexibility in bus stop design and best 

practices for placement. 

• Bridge Design – flexibility in bridge design to 

accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists across the 

structure and to provide access to the structure from 

under-passing trails. 

• Slow Streets – flexibility in designing streets for speeds 

lower than 20 mi/h. 

PART 2: REDUCING CONFLICTS

• Network Connectivity – strategies to develop safe and 

comfortable pedestrian and bicycle networks. 

• School Access – strategies to provide safe access to 

schools by maximizing the safety of walking and bicycling, 

minimizing motor vehicle trips, and reducing on-site 

circulation conflicts. 

• Multimodal Access to Existing Transit Stations – 

strategies to retrofit transit stations to improve access for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 

• Multimodal Access to New Transit Stations – strategies 

to reduce conflicts between various modes through transit 

station site planning and layout.

• Transit Conflicts – strategies to reduce conflicts between 

transit vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists in 

various scenarios.

• Freight Interaction – strategies to reduce conflicts 

between freight vehicles, loading activities, pedestrians, 

and bicyclists.

• Accessibility – strategies to provide an accessible 

pedestrian network for people with disabilities. 

• Turning Vehicles – strategies to reduce conflicts between 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and right- and left-turning vehicles 

at intersections. 

• Separated Bike Lanes at Intersections – strategies 

to reduce conflicts at intersections with protected 

intersections and mixing zones.

• Shared Use Paths – strategies to determine shared use 

path width and when separation of modes is necessary. 

• Midblock Path Intersections – strategies to reduce 

conflicts at shared use path and roadway intersections. 

• Shared Streets – strategies to design shared streets 

for all users and information on when shared streets are 

appropriate.
4 INTRODUCTION

FLEXIBILITY IN THE GREEN BOOK

The Green Book emphasizes the need for a holistic 

design approach and the use of engineering 

judgment, and highlights how the guidelines allow for 

flexibility: 

“The intent of this policy is to provide guidance to 

the designer by referencing a recommended range 

of values for critical dimensions. Good highway 

design involves balancing safety, mobility, and 

preservation of scenic, aesthetic, historic, cultural, 

and environmental resources. This policy is therefore 

not intended to be a detailed design manual that 

could supersede the need for the application of sound 

principles by the knowledgeable design professional. 

Sufficient flexibility is permitted to encourage 

independent designs tailored to particular situations.”

AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. xii

The AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways 

approved an Administrative Resolution on May 

25, 2016 resolving to provide guidance to State 

DOTs and other users of the Green Book regarding 

flexibility in design. The resolution noted that this 

guidance should assist in educating designers on 

the flexibility inherent in the Green Book, as well 

as new and additional guidance on specific design 

issues. It confirmed that this guidance should address 

designing in and for a multimodal transportation 

system.

CONTEXT FOR DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND

REDUCING CONFLICTS

This section provides a foundation and context for the design 

topics that follow. It summarizes the flexibility and versatility 

available in existing national design resources and addresses 

how to reduce liability concerns through engineering judgment, 

documentation, and experimentation. It builds on this 

information by introducing guiding principles for reducing 

conflicts between modes.

PART 1: APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

Applying flexibility requires knowledge of existing standards 

and guidelines, a recognition of the range of options available, 

and understanding how deviating from these may impact 

safety. A flexible approach uses existing tools in creative 

and varied ways to solve design challenges. It requires a 

holistic understanding of variables, thresholds, and available 

alternatives to achieve multiple objectives.

Current national guidelines and standards provide significant 

design flexibility. In 1997, FHWA published Flexibility in 

Highway Design to highlight the flexibility afforded to 

designers within existing standards and guidelines, and to 

encourage them to apply this flexibility when designing roads 

that fit into the natural and human environment. In 2004, the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO) published A Guide for Achieving Flexibility 

in Highway Design to promote the incorporation of sensitive 

community and environmental issues into the design of 

highway facilities. On August 20, 2013, FHWA issued a 

memorandum that clearly stated the agency’s support for 

flexibility in the design of bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Flexibility in Existing Standards and Guidelines

It is important for designers to recognize what is allowed 

and encouraged in existing standards and guidelines. The 

documents listed below are used by designers to inform the 

selection of traffic controls, geometric design, and traffic 

analysis.

• The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets 

and Highways (MUTCD) sets the national standard for 

signing, pavement markings, and traffic signals. The 

MUTCD is included by reference in the Code of Federal 

Regulations and is recognized as the national standard for 

all traffic control devices installed on any street, highway, 

bikeway, or private road open to public travel.

• AASHTO’s A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways 

and Streets (Green Book) and the supplemental guides 

for pedestrian and bicycle facility design are the national 

guidelines for the design of roadways and paths. The Green 

Book has been adopted by FHWA as the standard for the 

design of projects on the National Highway System. These 

AASHTO guides have been adopted in their entirety by 

some States. Other States have used them as the basis to 

create their own design manuals. The Green Book provides 

the most comprehensive guidance on geometric design and 

is a key resource used by designers.
INTRODUCTION 5

• The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Highway 

Capacity Manual (HCM) is the national guideline for 

analyzing traffic operations. The HCM does not establish 

a legal standard but provides guidance on techniques to 

analyze various modes of traffic.

Each of these documents explicitly states the need for 

flexibility and encourages the designer to employ engineering 

judgment and consider context when designing roadways. 

Regardless of the breadth and depth of a design publication, 

it cannot cover every real-world situation. For this reason, 

designers should understand the flexibility within, and 

engineering principles behind, design guidance.

In addition to the documents mentioned above, there are 

numerous publications that provide information on best 

practices and innovations in multimodal design. Such 

publications include:

• National Association of City Transportation Officials 

(NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide,

• NACTO Urban Street Design Guide, and

• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing 

Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive 

Approach.

FHWA supports the use of these resources and has 

emphasized that they can be used to inform the planning and 

design process (“Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Design 

Flexibility,” memorandum, August 20, 2013; “Questions and 

Answers about Design Flexibility for Pedestrian and Bicycle 

facilities,” July 25, 2014). A number of local government 

agencies have adopted these publications and are using them 

to design roadways. 

ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS

The U.S. Access Board published its Proposed 

Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public 

Right-of-Way (PROWAG) in 2011 and a supplemental 

notice with guidance on shared use paths in 2013. At 

the time of publication of this document (Achieving 

Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility 

and Reducing Conflicts), the Board had not issued a 

final PROWAG rule.

The PROWAG will become an enforceable standard 

only after the Board publishes a final rule and only 

after the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ) and/or 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) adopt 

the final guidelines into their respective ADA and 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act regulations. 

Until that time, the USDOJ 2010 ADA Standards

and the USDOT 2006 ADA/Section 504 Standards

(for recipients of Federal financial assistance from 

USDOT) provide enforceable standards applicable 

to the public right-of-way. Where the 2010 ADA 

Standards or the 2006 ADA/Section 504 Standards

do not address a specific issue in the public rightof-way, FHWA encourages public entities to look 

to the draft PROWAG for best practices. Several 

jurisdictions have chosen to apply the draft PROWAG

as an alternative to, or equivalent facilitation for, the 

ADA Standards because they provide more specific 

coverage of accessibility issues in the public-rightof-way. Jurisdictions that have adopted the draft 

PROWAG as their standard should consistently apply 

all provisions of the draft PROWAG. 

This document cites the draft PROWAG in anticipation 

of final PROWAG being adopted as the enforceable 

standard in the near future. Public entities and/

or recipients of Federal financial assistance are 

responsible for complying with the current ADA

and Section 504 accessibility standards and/or 

demonstrating equivalent facilitation.

For more information on designing accessible public 

rights-of-way, see the design topic on Accessibility.
6 INTRODUCTION

Liability and Risk

Designers sometimes express concern about liability when 

applying design flexibility. Due to these concerns, some 

designers adhere strictly to their interpretation of established 

design criteria, sometimes at the expense of providing 

adequate bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, strictly 

adhering to the most conservative design values without 

considering other relevant factors may not constitute 

reasonable care on behalf of the designer. Likewise, a designer 

who deviates from established design guidance is not 

necessarily negligent, particularly if the designer follows and 

documents a clear process, using engineering judgment, when 

dealing with design exceptions, and experimentation.

A flexible design approach has three key elements: 

(1) Engineering Judgment, (2) Documentation and (3) 

Experimentation.

1. ENGINEERING JUDGMENT

Engineering judgment relies on understanding engineering 

principles and the assumptions and contingencies 

incorporated into standards and guidelines. It requires 

knowledge and understanding of site specific conditions. 

The MUTCD defines engineering judgment as “the evaluation 

of available pertinent information, and the application of 

appropriate principles, provisions, and practices” and states 

“this Manual should not be considered a substitute for 

engineering judgment.” 

To apply design flexibility appropriately, the impacts of 

different design criteria should be weighed and examined 

using engineering judgment to determine the most appropriate 

application of, or deviation from, guidance to achieve the optimal 

solution. Decision makers should consider safety and comfort 

alongside competing needs for limited space, resources, and 

funding – while also accounting for the scenic, historic, aesthetic, 

and cultural values of the surrounding community.

Public input is another consideration when exercising 

engineering judgment. It is important to understand the 

opinions and preferences of the people who use, wish to use, 

or are affected by the transportation facility. In some cases, 

the general public may not understand certain aspects of 

technical design, or may have misconceptions about what 

design treatments are most effective. The designer’s role, in 

this case, is to not only consider public opinion, but to also 

educate people about design solutions that may address 

underlying concerns.

FHWA INTERIM APPROVAL 

Some devices shown in this guide are covered under 

Interim Approvals under the MUTCD, such as greencolored pavement in bicycle lanes and Rectangular 

Rapid-Flash Beacons. Approval must be obtained 

from FHWA before installing these devices.

2. DOCUMENTATION 

Practitioners should document design decisions, especially 

when applying design flexibility. Memoranda, engineering 

studies, and other methods of documentation can be used to 

capture the engineering judgment behind a design solution and 

build a case for applying flexibility or deviating from existing 

guidance. In some cases, depending on the design criteria 

involved, applying flexibility may trigger the need for a design 

exception. Documenting design decisions is usually a critical 

part of the design exception process. 

The Maine Department of Transportation’s Highway Design 

Guide, Chapter 15: Flexible Design Practices explains the 

benefit of careful documentation succinctly: “With reliance 

on complete and sound documentation, tort liability concerns 

need not be an impediment to achieving good road design.”

3. EXPERIMENTATION

When deviating from current guidance and design standards, 

liability concerns should not limit innovations, experimentation, 

and versatile applications of existing design treatments and 

proven safety countermeasures. In the case of traffic control 

devices, experimentation may be possible if the proposed 

design is not compliant with, or not included in, the MUTCD. 

Section 1A.10 of the MUTCD outlines a formal experimentation 

process that includes evaluation and follow-up adjustments 

to the design (including removal of the design) as needed. 

The experimentation process helps drive the advancement 

of the design practice and the adoption of new traffic control 

devices in the MUTCD. Without conclusive data detailing their 

impact, new traffic control devices would not be given national 

approval. Experimentation with newer traffic control devices 

and facility types such as pedestrian hybrid beacons, bicycle 

signals, and colored pavement markings have expanded the 

designer’s toolbox by providing the data necessary to show the 

success of these measures.
INTRODUCTION 7

PART 2: REDUCING CONFLICTS

When multiple modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and 

motor vehicles) operate in the same vicinity, conflicts can 

occur. Reducing conflicts is critical for vulnerable road users, 

such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Vulnerable road users are 

at a higher risk of injury or death when involved in a crash with 

a motor vehicle. The design topics in this resource provide 

practitioners with tools to reduce or eliminate conflicts 

between modes through various processes, policies, and 

design strategies.

Planners and designers can use the following guiding 

principles to minimize and manage conflicts where modes 

come together. These principles are discussed throughout 

the design topics in Part 2 and are also relevant to the design 

topics in Part 1.

Guiding Principles

1. SAFETY

Do the design, operations, and maintenance decrease the 

severity and likelihood of crashes? 

Where modes come together, the design should eliminate 

conflicts to the greatest extent possible. If it is not feasible 

to eliminate the conflict entirely, designers should minimize 

the speed differential between modes to ensure that if a crash 

occurs, the severity of the injury is likely to be lower. Safety 

considerations are also incorporated and implied in all other 

principles.

2. ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Does the design serve all modes and provide a sense of 

comfort? 

Designs should accommodate people of all ages and abilities. 

Solving conflicts by eliminating access for pedestrians or 

bicyclists is not an acceptable solution. 

3. COHERENCE AND PREDICTABILITY

Are the facilities for each mode recognizable and consistent? 

Where different modes come together, the design should 

provide clear right of way assignments, visibility of all users, 

and a clear path of travel for all modes, whether they are 

intended to operate in shared or separated spaces. This 

encourages predictable and safer behaviors for all users.

ASSESSMENTS 

Pedestrian and bicycle assessments and road 

safety audits are effective tools to evaluate 

walking and biking conditions in a community. By 

bringing together Federal, State, regional, and local 

jurisdictions, elected officials, advocates, public 

health, and other transportation professionals, 

assessments and audits allow participants to 

experience firsthand the challenges and barriers 

facing people who are walking or biking in their 

communities. 

More information on conducting assessments is 

provided in the U.S. Department of Transportation 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Assessments 

Summary Report (2015). 

Guidelines and prompt lists for road safety audits 

can be found at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

tools_solve.

4. CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

Does the design incorporate and support the natural 

environment and adjacent land use, such as transit stations, 

employment centers, and other destinations, and does it 

support community health, economic, and livability goals?

The management of conflict points should consider and 

incorporate access to current and future adjacent land uses. 

Designs should minimize barriers to walking, bicycling, and 

transit use, and promote improved economic and public health. 

5. EXPERIMENTATION 

Are there innovative and creative solutions that can be tested 

to reduce conflicts?

Experimenting with new treatments to resolve multimodal 

conflict points should be considered to expand the tools 

available to improve multimodal accommodations and reduce 

the likelihood and severity of conflicts. 
8 INTRODUCTION

REFERENCE GUIDE

Several design resources are referenced throughout this document. The table below includes both the full document title and the 

abbreviated title used in this document.

FULL TITLE ABBREVIATED TITLE

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design, 2004 AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 2012 AASHTO Bike Guide 2012

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on Highways and Streets, 2014 AASHTO Transit Guide 2014

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

Guide for Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 2004 AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 2011 AASHTO Green Book 2011

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,

Roadside Design Guide, 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 2011

Federal Highway Administration,

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, 2015 FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015 

Federal Highway Administration,

Livability in Transportation Guidebook, 2011 FHWA Livability 2011

Federal Highway Administration,

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 MUTCD 2009

Institute of Transportation Engineers,

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, 2010

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 

2010

National Association of City Transportation Officials,

Urban Bikeway Design Guide, 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 2014

National Association of City Transportation Officials,

Urban Street Design Guide, 2013 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013

Transportation Research Board,

Highway Capacity Manual, 2010 TRB Highway Capacity Manual 2010

United States Access Board,

Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way, 2011 PROWAG 2011
INTRODUCTION 9

THEMES

Common themes exist between various design topics and are outlined below.

THEME PAGES

Bus Stops 31, 34, 36, 41, 48, 49-52, 68, 71, 73, 79-82

Crossing Islands (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) 19, 33-36, 64, 68, 72, 88, 92, 96, 104

Design Speed 13, 14, 19, 21-27, 50, 58, 60, 72, 108

Design Vehicle 17-20

Enhancing Access to Opportunity 25-28, 33-36, 41-44, 49-56, 63-78, 87-90, 99-102

Ensuring Accessibility 38, 43, 47, 49-51, 54, 59, 65, 72, 73, 76, 87-90, 92, 107-110

Loading 48, 68, 72, 83, 84, 88, 98, 107, 110

Promoting Equity 4, 33-36, 49-52, 63-78, 87-91

Reconnecting Communities 13-36, 53-56, 57-60, 63-78

Road Diets (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) 16, 29-32, 88

Roundabouts (FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasure) 20, 23, 24, 27, 92

Separated Bike Lanes 14, 15, 30, 39, 40, 42, 45-48, 63-66, 69, 72, 76-78, 80, 82, 84, 

85, 92, 94, 95-98

Traffic Analysis 6, 29-32, 38

Transit Stations 63, 66, 71-78, 88, 104 
10 INTRODUCTION

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
PART 1: 

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

12 APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
13

Design criteria are values, such as lane widths, shoulder widths 

and design speeds, which vary depending on the functional 

classification and context of the roadway. Designers make 

decisions about these criteria early in project development, and 

these decisions should reflect the desired purpose and function 

of a street and prioritize the safety of all users. This design topic 

provides an introduction on how designers should approach 

selecting design criteria for multimodal roadways.

Designers sometimes adhere strictly to the most conservative 

values, leading to wider streets, large curves, and higher 

operating speeds. This may result in a design that meets all 

the design criteria, but has a high crash rate compared to 

expectations. 

Designers have flexibility in selecting design criteria and are 

not always required to choose the most conservative values. 

Understanding the local context of the roadway, needs of the 

community, and desired function of the roadway will help the 

designer identify the appropriate design criteria.

The 2011 AASHTO Green Book recognizes that functional 

classification of highways can lead to roadway facilities that 

do not take into account the local context and that design has 

impacts beyond traffic service: 

“A highway has wide-ranging effects in addition to providing traffic 

service to users. It is essential that the highway be considered as an 

element of the total environment. The term ‘environment,’ as used here 

refers to the totality of humankind’s surroundings: social, physical, 

natural, and synthetic.”

 AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 2-86

“After a functional classification has been assigned to a roadway, 

however, there is still a degree of flexibility in the major controlling 

factor of design speed. There are no ‘cookie-cutter’ designs for 

roadways. Instead, there is a range of geometric design options 

available.”

FHWA Highway Functional Classification: 

Concepts, Criteria and Procedures 2013, p. 42

“Lane widths of 10 feet are appropriate in urban areas and have 

a positive impact on a streets safety without impacting traffic 

operations.”

NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide 2013, p. 34

“Conventional roadway design characteristics, including geometry and 

speed, are associated with each functional classification, but do not 

capture the nuances of a roadway’s context, nor allow for the idea that 

a large downtown multiway boulevard might have high capacity, lower 

speeds, and be enjoyable to walk.”

 FHWA Livability Guide, p. 76

DESIGN CRITERIA AND LANE WIDTH

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
Flexibility Enables 

Separated Bike 

Lane

Conventional 

Conventional

14 DESIGN CRITERIA AND LANE WIDTH

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

SETTING DESIGN CRITERIA

The functional classification of a roadway directs designers to 

recommended values for each design criterion. Design speed 

is a fundamental decision because it influences other design 

criteria such as horizontal and vertical alignment, lane width, 

shoulder width, grade, and stopping sight distance. For more 

information, refer to design topics on Traffic Calming and 

Design Speed and Paved Shoulders.

The AASHTO Green Book allows for flexibility by providing a 

range of values. For example, design speeds on urban arterials 

range between 30 and 60 mi/h (2011, p. 7-27) and lane width 

may vary between 10 and 12 feet (2011, p. 7-29). Additional 

national resources recommend lower design speeds: NACTO 

Urban Street Design Guide recommends a design speed of 

less than 35 mi/h for urban arterials (2013, p. 141) and ITE’s 

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares recommends a 

design speed of 25–35 mi/h for a “Boulevard,” which is similar 

to an arterial (2010, pp. 70–71). 

It is essential that designers carefully consider both the context 

(urban, suburban, rural) and speed of the roadway as these are 

fundamental elements of design. Some suburban communities 

and rural towns have characteristics similar to areas typically 

considered urban. These areas are characterized by denser land 

use and street networks and increased pedestrian and bicycle 

activity. As stated in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide, 

“there also may be whole communities that are separated from 

the metropolitan center by rural-like conditions but function 

similarly to an urban area” (2011, p. 10-2). For example, in 

lower-speed urban environments, the AASHTO Roadside 

Design Guide recognizes that there are limitations to providing 

large clear zones and offsets should be a minimum of 1.5 feet 

from the face of curb. 1

1 2

CONTEXT SENSITIVE SOLUTIONS, LIVABILITY, AND 

PERFORMANCE-BASED PRACTICAL DESIGN (PBPD)

Context-sensitive solutions (CSS), livability, and performancebased practical design (PBPD) rely on flexibility to achieve 

results that meet a project’s purposes and needs. CSS is a 

collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that includes the 

viewpoints of all stakeholders in the development of a shared 

vision of project goals and uses a defined decision-making 

process. CSS and livability seek transportation solutions 

that address the needs of all road users and the functions 

of the facility within the context of its setting, considering 

land use, users, the environment, and other factors. PBPD 

complements CSS and livability by highlighting the value of 

performance information that supports decision-making. For 

more information on PBPD, refer to https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

design/pbpd.

RECOMMENDED RESOURCES

Several sources provide information on the flexibility available 

in design criteria selection. In addition to the AASHTO Guide 

for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities and the AASHTO Guide for the Development of 

Bicycle Facilities, the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide and 

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares provide useful 

information on design criteria flexibility. (FHWA, “Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Facility Design Flexibility,” memorandum, 2013).

CONTROLLING DESIGN CRITERIA AND DESIGN 

EXCEPTIONS

Historically, 13 controlling design criteria had been identified 

by FHWA as having substantial importance to the operational 

Note: One or both of the outside vehicular lanes in all of the graphics could serve as on-street parking, which 

would provide a traffic calming effect and a physical buffer for pedestrians and bicyclists. For more information, 

see design topics on Road Diets and Traffic Analysis and Traffic Calming and Design Speed.
Flexibility Enables 

Widened Sidewalk 

and Buffer

Flexibility Enables 

Widened Buffer 

and Bike Lane

Conventional 

Conventional 

DESIGN CRITERIA AND LANE WIDTH 15

3

5

4

and safety performance of highways on the National Highway 

System (NHS). As of May 2016, these criteria have been 

revised. There are now 10 controlling criteria for high-speed 

roads. On non-freeways with design speeds under 50 mph 

on the NHS, only the following two controlling criteria apply: 

Design Loading Structural Capacity and Design Speed. Refer 

to FHWA’s website for current information. (Federal Register, 

Revision of Thirteen Controlling Criteria for Design and 

Documentation of Design Exceptions, 2016 and National 

Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report 783: 

Evaluation of the 13 Controlling Criteria for Geometric Design, 

2015)

FHWA requires a written design exception if design criteria on 

the NHS are not met for any of the controlling criteria. For nonNHS roadways, States may have their own design exception 

processes. Some States require a design waiver to vary from 

State criteria and a design exception to vary from national 

criteria. 

LANE WIDTH

Lane width is an important design criteria. Narrower lanes can 

improve comfort and safety for vulnerable users. By narrowing 

lanes, designers can create space for a separated bike lane 

2 , a widened sidewalk with buffer 3 and reduced crossing 

distances 4 , or a standard bike lane and widened buffer. 5

Narrower lanes, as an element of an integrated urban street 

design, can contribute to lower operating speeds. 

The AASHTO Green Book offers substantial flexibility 

regarding lane widths, allowing a range of between 9 and 12 

feet depending on desired speed, capacity, and context of a 

roadway (2011, p. 4-7). While 12-foot lanes have been used 

historically as motor vehicle travel lanes, the AASHTO Green 

Book allows 10-foot travel lanes in low speed environments (45 

mi/h or less) (2011, pp. 4-7–4-8). 

Designers have avoided using narrower lane widths in the 

past due to concerns about safety and congestion especially 

on arterial roadways. However, research on suburban and 

urban arterials has shown that in most cases, travel lane 

widths between 10 feet and 11 feet as a part of a thoughtful, 

integrated design of arterials and collectors do not negatively 

impact overall motor vehicle safety or operations and have no 

measurable effect on vehicular capacity. The study found one 

exception where 10-foot wide travel lanes should be used with 

caution–on 4-lane, undivided arterial roadways. (Potts, Ingrid 

B., Douglas W. Harwood, and Karen R. Richard. “Relationship 

of Lane Width to Safety on Urban and Suburban Arterials.” 

Transportation Research Record, Issue 2023 (2007): 63–82. 

doi: 10.3141/2023-08). For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Road Diets and Traffic Analysis and the FHWA 

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse website (http://

www.cmfclearinghouse.org).
16 DESIGN CRITERIA AND LANE WIDTH

CASE STUDIES

SMART TRANSPORTATION 

GUIDEBOOK

MARCH 2008

Planning and Designing Highways and Streets 

that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities

In 2015, the City of Austin completed a road diet on Gracy 

Farms Lane to include buffered bicycle lanes. Gracy Farms 

Lane is classified as a collector street with an average daily 

traffic of 10,000 vehicles per day and relatively low heavy 

vehicle volumes. This segment of Gracy Farms Lane provides 

an important east-west connection for bicyclists in a network 

where geographical barriers limit other options. The City 

decided to include a right-turn lane at one intersection due 

to relatively high turning volumes. To accommodate the 

right-turn lane while maintaining bicycle facilities through the 

intersection, designers narrowed travel lane widths, included 

a 9-foot right turn lane, and provided a continuous bike lane in 

one direction and sharrows in the other direction.

GRACY FARMS LANE ROAD DIET

AUSTIN, TX

The City of Boston and the Massachusetts Department of 

Transportation worked together to develop a multimodal 

design solution for the reconstruction of Massachusetts 

Avenue in Boston. The street is a major urban arterial that, 

in addition to carrying 33,000 vehicles per day, is heavily 

traveled by pedestrians and bicyclists and has a bus route 

with the highest ridership in the region. With an $18 million 

reconstruction effort, the awarded bid package did not initially 

include dedicated bicycle facilities. The City of Boston utilized 

the design exception process to build a case to State and 

Federal agencies to narrow travel lanes in order to provide 

additional space for bike lanes. By building consensus, a 

change order was issued to the contractor with a new cross 

section consisting of 10.5-foot travel lanes and 5-foot bike 

lanes.

MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE LANE DIET

BOSTON, MA

The Smart Transportation Guidebook, which received an FHWA 

Transportation Planning Excellence Award in 2008, defines 

a context-focused classification system that complements 

AASHTO’s functional classification system. Each category 

in this system corresponds to a functional classification. 

However, it recognizes that pedestrian and bicyclist activity 

may be prioritized in certain land use contexts. The Guidebook 

tailors ranges for several design values found in the Green 

Book to apply to the traffic-calming needs of each context. 

These design values include widths for travel lanes, shoulders, 

parking lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, medians, curb radii, and 

number of travel lanes. In doing so, it acknowledges that in 

some contexts, guidance should prioritize the pedestrian and 

bicycle experience, even if it results in decreased vehicular LOS 

on roadways.

SMART TRANSPORTATION GUIDEBOOK

NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA

Source: Nathan Wilkes, City of Austin
17

Intersection design must balance the needs of drivers, transit 

users, pedestrians, and bicyclists. To improve safety for 

vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, 

intersections should have short crossing distances, slow motor 

vehicle turning speeds, and good visibility. Context-sensitive 

design derives from key decisions made about intersection 

geometry. For example, the selection of design vehicle and the 

tolerance for vehicle encroachment into other lanes will help 

determine the necessary width of the intersection and impact 

pedestrian crossing distances. 

Designers have flexibility in the selection of the design vehicle 

and how that vehicle will traverse the intersection. It is not 

always necessary to design an intersection for the largest 

vehicle that may ever use it or to oversimplify geometry with 

large sweeping curves. Designers should consider large vehicle 

frequency and other contextual factors when selecting a design 

vehicle. Designers also have flexibility in determining when it 

is appropriate for large vehicles to encroach into other travel 

lanes during turns—a key factor for designing tighter, pedestrianfriendly intersections. Design features, such as mountable 

truck aprons and stop bar placement, can help accommodate 

large vehicles and result in suitable intersection geometry for 

vulnerable road users.

The 2011 AASHTO Green Book recommends that designers 

select the largest vehicle that will use a facility with 

considerable frequency, but then goes on to provide more 

nuanced guidance and flexibility:

“If turning traffic is nearly all passenger vehicles, it may not be costeffective or pedestrian friendly to design for large trucks. However, the 

design should allow for an occasional large truck to turn by swinging 

wide and encroaching on other traffic lanes without disrupting traffic 

significantly.”

 AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 9-80

“Design for the most vulnerable street user rather than the largest 

possible vehicle. While designs must account for the challenges 

that larger vehicles, especially emergency vehicles, may face, these 

infrequent challenges must not dominate the safety or comfort of a 

site for the majority of daily users.”

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 143

“In designing walkable urban thoroughfares, the smallest possible 

curb-return radii are used to shorten the length of pedestrian 

crosswalks.”

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 185

“Good intersection design clearly indicates to bicyclists and motorists 

how they should traverse the intersection.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-22

“Excessive crossing distances increase the pedestrian exposure time, 

increase the potential of vehicle-pedestrian conflict, and add to vehicle 

delay.”

AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 74

INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
18 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

LAYOUT

To the extent feasible, intersections should meet at right 

angles. This increases sight distance and can help lower 

vehicle speeds (AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 9-25). Skewed 

intersections can increase pedestrians’ exposure to vehicle 

traffic, increase speeds for turning vehicles, reduce sight 

distance for some users, and may not provide clear orientation 

cues for pedestrians with visual disabilities. (AASHTO 

Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 76)

TURN RESTRICTIONS

Consider turn restrictions at locations where turning volume is 

low and pedestrian crossing volumes are high.

(NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 129)

1

6

7

11

3

5

4

DESIGN VEHICLE AND ENCROACHMENT

The design vehicle 1 should be the frequent user of 

the street and should dictate the lane widths and corner 

radii. Consider a control vehicle, an infrequent user of 

the intersection, to understand how larger vehicles will 

negotiate the intersection. Stop bars can be recessed from 

the intersection 2 to allow control vehicle encroachment 

(NACTO Urban Streets Design Guide 2013, p. 144). Assume 

emergency vehicles will use the entire right-of-way. See in the 

2011 AASHTO Green Book Fig. 9-33 for design considerations 

when allowing encroachment.

CURB RADII AND CURB EXTENSIONS

Curb radii should be designed for the vehicle that turns at 

the intersection most frequently. Smaller curb radii and curb 

≥6’

≥6’
INTERSECTION GEOMETRY 19

extensions position vulnerable users in a more visible location 

3 , reduce crossing lengths 4 , reduce motor vehicle speeds, 

and provide additional space for curb ramps. 5 Generally, for 

local urban streets, curb radii should be between 10–15 feet 

unless special circumstances require a larger radius. (AASHTO 

Green Book 2011, p. 9-92)

SPEED OF TURNING VEHICLE

The AASHTO Green Book assumes that vehicles are making 

turns between 0 and 10 mi/h (2011, p. 2-5). If designers 

anticipate turns at the lower end of that range, vehicle turning 

envelopes can be further reduced. 6

EFFECTIVE CURB RADII

Where on-street parking or bike lanes are present, designers 

should use the “effective” curb radii 7 , rather than the actual, 

to create a more compact intersection that encourage slower 

speeds. (AASHTO Green Book 2011, Fig. 5-3)

MOUNTABLE TRUCK APRONS

In locations where large vehicles make occasional turns, 

designers can consider mountable truck aprons. 8

Mountable truck aprons deter passenger vehicles from making 

higher speed turns, but accommodate the occasional large 

vehicle without encroachment or off-tracking into pedestrian 

waiting areas. Mountable truck aprons should be visually 

distinct from the adjacent travel lane and sidewalk. 

LANE WIDTH

Lane widths are an important element of intersection design for 

vulnerable users. Narrower lanes reduce pedestrian crossing 

distances and encourage motorists to drive slower. For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Design Criteria and Lane 

Width.

CHANNELIZED RIGHT TURNS

Channelized right turns are typically less pedestrian friendly, 

but can be appropriate where large curb radii are needed, such 

as turns with a higher frequency of large vehicles, or at skewed 

intersections. A right-turn channelizing island can also break 

up longer crossing distances by providing refuge space and 

two shorter crossings 9 (AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, 

p. 78). Designs can be further developed with compound 

curves that slow vehicular speeds and prioritize pedestrian 

movements. 10 (See Table 9-18 in the 2011 AASHTO Green 

Book for guidance on turning roadway lane widths.) Design 

speeds less than 10 mi/h should be used. (ITE Designing 

Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 187)

MEDIANS

The presence and shape of medians is dictated by factors such 

as design vehicle selection, turning speeds, and lane widths. 

Medians can be particularly useful for pedestrians crossing 

multilane roads if the median nose extends through the 

pedestrian crossing area and is sufficiently wide (a minimum 

of 6 feet wide). Crossings with four or more lanes of traffic 

should provide a pedestrian refuge 11 as part of a continuous 

median or dedicated crossing island. (AASHTO Green Book 

2011, p. 6-14)

Where they are intended to serve as a pedestrian refuge, 

medians and crossing islands should be a minimum of 6 feet. 

(ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 141)

2

8

9

10
20 INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

CASE STUDIES

The City of Portland installed mountable truck aprons at 

an existing intersection where large turning vehicles were 

relatively frequent. The character of the neighborhood has 

changed from an industrial area in recent years and large 

vehicles are now less frequent.

The mountable truck aprons allow drivers of large vehicles to 

turn without entering the pedestrian zone or encroaching on 

vehicle lanes. The height of the mountable section discourages 

smaller vehicles from making the same turn, which reduces 

their speed through the intersection.

MOUNTABLE TRUCK APRONS

PORTLAND, OR

The Burlington County Engineer’s Office reconstructed the 

skewed intersection of County Route 528 and Old York Road 

(CR 660). Relatively high speeds were common on the main 

roadway. The two-way stop controlled intersection was 

replaced by a modern roundabout with a 15 mi/h circulating 

speed. The design includes outside truck aprons to achieve 

the desired entering speeds and roadway widths for cars 

and school buses, while providing a larger roadway width to 

accommodate tractor trailers (WB-67) and farm equipment. 

The outside truck aprons include a mountable curb with a 

minimal 3 inch reveal and stamped red concrete. Observations 

have shown that drivers of small vehicles do not ride on 

the truck apron. As shown in the picture, pedestrians are 

accommodated in advance of the truck apron.

OUTSIDE TRUCK APRONS

BURLINGTON COUNTY, NJ

The San Francisco Better Streets Plan provides guidance 

on design vehicle selection given the type and frequency of 

vehicles. Specifically, the plan recommends that designers 

differentiate between the most frequent vehicle and a vehicle 

that may only use the intersection occasionally.

For example, a transit route may necessitate a design that 

allows a bus to turn within the travel lane. On the other hand, 

locations with higher pedestrian activity may be designed 

for a Single Unit truck (SU-30), requiring larger vehicles to 

encroach into adjacent or opposing lanes. Strategies such as 

allowing encroachment and locating stop bars farther from 

the intersection allow these intersections to accommodate 

occasional larger turning vehicles while providing shorter 

pedestrian crossings.

CORNER CURB RADII—BETTER STREETS PLAN

SAN FRANCISCO, CA
21

TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED

Traffic calming is the combination of measures that reduce some 

of the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, 

and improve conditions for vulnerable road users. Traffic 

calming uses physical measures to slow motor vehicle speeds 

and encourages desired behaviors to maximize safety, such as 

yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists. Typical traffic calming 

measures include cross-section measures, such as street trees, 

narrower lanes, and on-street parking. They also include periodic 

measures, such as curb extensions, speed tables, and chicanes. 

Traffic calming is an important tool to help improve walking and 

bicycling conditions.

Design speed is a fundamental factor in roadway design and is 

used to establish design features. It affects horizontal alignment, 

vertical alignment, and cross section features. Higher design 

speeds can result in streets that are less comfortable for 

vulnerable users. As speeds increase, crash severity and fatality 

rates increase significantly for all users: pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and people in motor vehicles. Designers have the flexibility to set 

design speeds lower than the posted speed limit.

The 2011 AASHTO Green Book provides flexibility when 

it comes to selecting appropriate design speeds given the 

context of a particular roadway:

“Design speed should be a logical one with respect to the anticipated 

operating speed, topography, the adjacent land use, and the functional 

classification of the highway. In selection of design speed every effort 

should be made to attain a desired combination of safety, mobility, and 

efficiency within the constraints of environmental quality, economics, 

aesthetics, and social or political impacts” 

AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 2-54

“In urban areas, the design of the street should generally be such that it 

limits the maximum speed at which drivers can operate comfortably, as 

needed to balance the needs of all users.” 

FHWA, “Relationship between Design Speed and Posted Speed,” memorandum, 

October 7, 2015

“The severity of pedestrian crashes, a significant concern in urban areas, 

is greatly increased as speeds increase. Context-sensitive solutions 

for the urban environment often involve creating a safe roadway 

environment in which the driver is encouraged by the roadway’s features 

and the surrounding areas to operate at low speeds.”

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004, p. 19 

“There is a direct correlation between higher speeds, crash risk, and the 

severity of injuries... Design streets using target speed, the speed you 

intend for drivers to go, rather than operating speed. The 85th percentile 

of observed target speeds should fall between 10–30 mph on most 

urban streets.“

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2014, pp. 140–141

“Traffic calming challenges the traditional design view of a roadway 

design, namely, that higher speeds are desirable and indicative of a highquality design.” 

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004, p. 88

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
22 TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED

TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED MYTHS

This design topic addresses myths related to traffic calming 

and setting appropriate design speeds for new roadways and 

retrofit projects.

MYTH 1: ROUTE MODIFICATIONS ARE A FORM OF 

TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming is about reducing speeds, not about removing 

pieces of the street network or changing the route people 

take from Point A to Point B. These techniques are called 

“route modifications.” Route modifications remove access 

through signing and minor geometric changes (i.e., one-way 

restrictions, street closures, partial closures, turn prohibitions, 

and diverters). In general, they should be used with caution, 

because they can have the impact of increasing traffic volumes 

on other streets that also serve pedestrians and bicyclists. 

However, route modification can be used to compliment traffic 

calming efforts on certain project types, such as neighborhood 

greenways or bike boulevards. In some cases, traffic calming 

projects may result in reduced traffic volumes and motorists 

may divert to other routes. This outcome should be factored 

into a network approach to traffic calming. 

MYTH 2: STOP SIGNS ARE TRAFFIC CALMING 

MEASURES

Sometimes residents request STOP signs to deter drivers 

from speeding in their neighborhoods. However, STOP signs 

must meet certain criteria in order to maintain effectiveness. 

STOP signs installed for the purpose of slowing motorists 

can be counterproductive: motorists may accelerate rapidly 

after a stop and maintain higher speeds between signs. This 

behavior is called “speed spiking.” Additionally, motorists may 

roll through STOP signs, endangering pedestrians who are 

expecting vehicles to come to a complete stop.

MYTH 3: DESIGN SPEED SHOULD BE GREATER 

THAN POSTED SPEED

Some designers use a design speed that is higher than the 

posted speed with the goal of improving safety. However, 

higher design speeds can result in more generous vehicular 

designs that cause motorists to drive faster, which reduces 

safety. Best practices from ITE and NACTO recommend setting 

a design speed equal to the target speed. As defined in the 

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares, “Target speed 

is the highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a 

roadway consistent with the level of multimodal activity and 

adjacent land uses to provide both mobility for motor vehicles 

and a safe environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public 

transit users” (2010, p. 108). Designers should consider 

several factors in addition to the posted speed to determine an 

appropriate design speed including, but not limited to, target 

operating speed, type and density of adjacent land uses, level 

of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity, and frequency of 

driveways. 

MYTH 4: POSTED SPEED LIMITS MUST USE THE 

85TH PERCENTILE METHODOLOGY

The FHWA Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits

summarizes several engineering approaches to setting speed 

limits. The “Engineering approach” and “Expert system 

approach” are the most commonly used. The Engineering 

approach primarily uses the 85th percentile speed (2012, p. 

10). However, from a safety perspective this approach can 

result in excessive speeds. For the Expert system approach, 

FHWA developed a model called USLIMITS2, which determines 

an appropriate speed limit for all roadway users. For roadway 

segments that experience high pedestrian and bicyclist 

activities, USLIMITS2 recommends speed limits close to 50th 

percentile instead of 85th percentile speed.

A third approach set forward in Methods and Practices for 

Setting Speed Limits called the “Injury minimization” or “safe 

system approach.” This approach is often more appropriate in 

locations with pedestrian and bicycle activity. In this approach, 

“speed limits are set according to the crash types that are 

likely to occur, the impact forces that result, and the human 

body’s tolerance to withstand these forces” (2012, p. 10). This 

approach is consistent with Vision Zero principles—which 

state that no loss of life on a road system is acceptable. The 

“injury minimization” approach is therefore highly appropriate 

in contexts where people commonly walk or bike. After traffic 

calming measures have been implemented, a speed study 

should be conducted to determine if the speed limit can be 

reduced.

MYTH 5: CLEAR ZONES SHOULD BE APPLIED 

EQUALLY ON ALL STREETS

Clear zones are a “forgiving” roadside design concept intended 

to decrease the frequency and severity of fixed-object crashes 

by providing a space for errant vehicles to recover after leaving 

the roadway. While clear zones are appropriate for freeways 

and high speed roadways, the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide

recognizes that there are practical limitations to clear zones on 

low-speed curbed streets. In urban, suburban, and small town 

rural settings where pedestrian and bicycle activity is expected

and the traffic speed is lower and depending on the context,

roadway design may incorporate street trees, furnishings, and 

plantings to create a sense of enclosure. This provides a traffic 

calming effect, which may increase comfort and safety for 

vulnerable road users. 
TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED 23

CONE OF VISION

PEDESTRIAN FATALITY & SERIOUS INJURY RISK

18% 50% 77%

As motor vehicle speeds increase, the risk of serious injury or fatality for a pedestrian also increases (AARP Impact Speed and a 

Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death 2011, p. 1). Also, motorist visual field and peripheral vision is reduced at higher speeds.

MYTH 6: RAISED INTERSECTIONS AND RAISED 

CROSSWALKS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE ON 

ARTERIAL STREETS

Raised measures require motor vehicles to reduce speeds 

and can be appropriate on arterial roadways, particularly at 

intersections with slip lanes and on intersecting side streets. 

As stated in the AASHTO Flexibility Guide, “traffic calming 

techniques may apply on arterials, collectors, or local streets” 

(2004, p. 87). Raised measures may not be appropriate on 

higher speed roads. If raised measures are desired to improve 

pedestrian or bicyclist safety, designers should consider 

completing a study and reducing the speed limit to 35 mi/h or 

lower. Raised measures can minimize impacts to emergency 

vehicle response times through strategic placement and 

design details such as longer ramps, slots, or tire grooves. 

Gradual transitions on raised measures benefit passenger 

comfort and pavement conditions. These slots or grooves can 

be placed at locations that correspond to emergency vehicle 

wheelbases.

MYTH 7: LOWER SPEEDS ALWAYS INCREASE 

TRAVEL TIMES

Roadways designed for lower motor vehicle speeds may not 

result in longer travel times compared to similar streets with 

higher motor vehicle speeds. Travel times depend on a wide 

variety of factors, such as intersection frequency, operational 

efficiency, and driver characteristics. Delay for motorists 

in suburban and urban areas is often due to congestion at 

signalized intersections, and usually not travel speeds between 

intersections. There are several techniques to lower motor 

vehicle speeds that improve safety for all roadway users while 

simultaneously reducing congestion. Replacing signalized 

intersections with modern roundabouts, a Proven Safety 

Countermeasure, or coordinating signals for speeds of 15 to 

25 mi/h (AASHTO Green Book 2011, pg. 2-57) can maintain or 

reduce vehicular travel times on a corridor.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

There are several comprehensive guides to traffic calming that 

provide additional information such as Traffic Calming: State 

of the Practice (1999) by FHWA and ITE, the Traffic Calming 

Website (http://www.ite.org/traffic/) by ITE, and LA Living 

Streets Manual: Chapter 10 Traffic Calming (2012) by the City 

of Los Angeles. 
24 TRAFFIC CALMING AND DESIGN SPEED

CASE STUDIES

Source: New York City Department of Transportation

In 1999, the City of West Palm Beach completed a traffic 

calming project on Olive Avenue, a State arterial roadway. The 

road had been one-way with approximately 12,000 vehicles 

per day and relatively high speeds. Beach Atlantic College, 

which occupies both sides of Olive Avenue, was considering 

building two pedestrian bridges to connect their severed 

campus. The City of West Palm Beach, the Florida Department 

of Transportation, and the College collaborated to improve 

the design. The new design narrowed travel lanes, added 

landscaping and street trees, and converted the arterial 

from one-way to two-way. The project incorporated raised 

crossings, designed with transitions suitable for emergency 

vehicles. The result provided comfortable at-grade crossings, 

increased property values, improved quality of life, and 

reduced traffic volumes.

OLIVE AVENUE

WEST PALM BEACH, FL

One strategy to create self-enforcing, slower speeds is through 

signal progression along signalized corridors, supplemented by 

other traffic calming measures, education, and enforcement. 

As a part of New York City’s Vision Zero initiative, the Arterial 

Slow Zone Program focuses on reducing speeds along 

corridors with high crash rates. On the 25 corridors selected 

as Arterial Slow Zones, signals were retimed for 25 mi/h speed 

progression. Slow Zone branding signs similar to the City’s 

Neighborhood Slow Zones program were added to the corridor. 

In addition, police provide focused enforcement along these 

zones for speeding, failure to obey traffic signals, and failure to 

yield to pedestrians.

ARTERIAL SLOW ZONE PROGRAM

NEW YORK CITY, NY

The City of Golden installed a series of four roundabouts 

resulting in improvements to traffic operations and economic 

development. Initially, South Golden Road served 12,000 

vehicles per day via four travel lanes and one center turn lane. 

The wide roadway, inconsistent sidewalks, and numerous 

driveways contributed to speeding and reduced access to side 

streets. In 1999, four roundabouts and raised medians were 

constructed. After installation, the 85th percentile travel speed 

decreased from 47 mi/h to 35 mi/h, and travel time decreased 

from an average of 103 to 78 seconds. The crash rate dropped 

67 percent and traffic-related injuries dropped over 80 percent. 

The more pedestrian-oriented environment contributed to 

economic activity, and sales tax revenue increased 68 percent.

SOUTH GOLDEN ROAD

GOLDEN, CO
25

Highways traveling through “main street” town centers provide 

both connectivity between communities and local access for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. This dual role can result in 

traffic speeds and volumes that present safety concerns for all 

road users, particularly along the main streets. Context-sensitive 

main streets may be designed to control vehicle speeds and 

improve safety.

Historically, functional classifications and design speeds for 

highways have led to higher-speed designs that can negatively 

impact denser, small town main streets. Community character, 

adjacent land uses, and safety for all users should dictate the 

design criteria for a highway that serves as a main street.

Federal and State guidelines encourage the use of traffic calming 

and context-sensitive design to prioritize safety for all modes 

rather than designing based solely on functional classification. 

Designers have the flexibility to take land-use context into 

account to select lower design speeds, use narrower lane widths, 

add on-street parking, and provide geometric designs that 

balance the needs of all users. 

2004 AASHTO Flexibility Guide recognizes that functional 

classification of highways may not always be compatible with 

the adjacent land use context: 

“A roadway’s formal classification as urban or rural may differ from 

actual site circumstances or prevailing conditions. An example 

includes a rural arterial route passing through a small town. The 

route may not necessarily be classified as urban, but there may be 

a significant length over which the surrounding land use, prevailing 

speeds, and transportation functions are more urban or suburban than 

rural.”

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004, p. 12

“Functional classification does not dictate design; however, the two 

influence one another. There is a great deal of latitude in the design of 

a roadway relative to its functional classification.”

FHWA Highway Functional Classification

Concepts, Criteria and Procedures 2013, p. 42 

“Main streets typically are no wider than two travel lanes, provide onstreet parking and may contain bicycle lanes.”

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 72

“Speeds cannot be reduced simply by changing the posted speed 

limit. Geometric and cross-sectional elements, in combination with the 

context, establish a driving environment where drivers choose speeds 

that feel reasonable and comfortable.”

FHWA Mitigation Strategies for Design Exceptions 2007, p. 26

“There needs to be a distinct relationship between the community 

speed limit and a change in the roadway character. Emphasizing a 

change in environment increases awareness.”

NCHRP 737 Design Guidance for High-Speed to Low-Speed Transition Zones 

for Rural Highways 2012, p. 65

TRANSITIONS TO MAIN STREETS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
26 TRANSITIONS TO MAIN STREETS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION AND VARIABLE 

DESIGN SPEED 

The functional classification of a roadway guides a designer 

to select a design speed based on a range of speeds. The 

AASHTO Green Book allows for flexibility with regard to design 

speed, providing a range between 40–75 mi/h (2011, p. 7-2) for 

rural arterial roadways, indicating that speeds between 60–75 

mi/h are normally used in level terrain. By comparison, urban 

arterials are generally designed with a design speed ranging 

between 30–60 mi/h (2011, p. 7-27) and provide mobility of 

all users balanced with access to businesses, institutions, and 

residences (2011, p. 7-26). 

Although a main street may exist along a rural arterial roadway, 

the design principles of a more urban environment apply due to 

increased population density, increased bicycle and pedestrian 

activity, and increased need for property access within a 

community. Therefore, design for a lower speed through a 

main street environment. The ITE Designing Walkable Urban 

Thoroughfares recognizes that State highways serve as main 

streets in smaller rural towns and suggests a design speed of 

20–25 mi/h on main streets (2010, p. 78). 

TRANSITION ZONES

The design speed for a rural arterial roadway should be 

reduced approaching a main street environment. The AASHTO

Green Book provides flexibility regarding the design of the 

transition zone into a lower-speed environment stating that 

the introduction of a lower design speed should not be done 

abruptly but should be effected over sufficient distance to 

permit drivers to gradually change speed before reaching 

the lower design speed section (2011, p. 2-54). The highway 

features within this transition zone, such as curvature, 

superelevation, lane and shoulder widths, and roadside 

clearances should be designed to encourage slower speeds. 

EXAMPLE TRANSITION ZONES AND GATEWAYS

The design treatments shown below can be utilized as transition zone treatments, gateway treatments or both. Both examples 

include a gateway sign 1 , narrowing of lanes 2 , the removal of the shoulder 3 , and the introduction of curb, street trees 4 , 

sidewalk buffer, and sidewalk. 5

EXAMPLE A: 

This example provides horizontal deflection 6 entering and exiting main street.

EXAMPLE B:

This example provides a median 7 and should only be used in constrained environments. 

2

2

4

4

3

3

5

5

1

1

6

7

12’

12’

10’

10’
TRANSITIONS TO MAIN STREETS 27

Pavement markings, such as painted center islands, painted 

narrower lanes, on-pavement speed limit markings, or onpavement SLOW markings, are not recommended as standalone treatments as they have been shown to be either not 

effective or only marginally effective at influencing motorist 

speeds. (FHWA. Traffic Calming on Main Roads Through Rural 

Communities. 2009, p. 13).

GATEWAY TREATMENTS

A gateway treatment is a visual and physical feature to 

communicate tomotorists that they are entering a slower 

speed environment. Physical changes in the roadway 

alignment or width are the treatments most likely to affect 

driver behavior and reduce speeds; driver speeds will decrease 

as roadway deflection increases (NCHRP. Speed Reduction 

Techniques for Rural High-to-Low Speed Transitions. 2011, 

p. 11), so designers should consider changes in the roadway 

alignment to physically slow motorists. 

Gateway treatments, such as roundabouts (a Proven Safety 

Countermeasure) 8 , chicanes, raised medians 9 , reduced 

lane widths 10 , shoulder removal 11 , providing a curbline 12

and/or including tall vegetation (e.g., hedges, trees), have been 

shown to be effective at reducing travel speeds approaching 

a main street (NCHRP. Speed Reduction Techniques for Rural 

High-to-Low Speed Transitions. 2011, p. 6). Bicycle facilities, 

where present, should be carried through gateway treatments.

Roundabouts slow motorists and serve as traffic control at 

intersections, and also may be installed where signals or stop 

signs are not warranted. They can provide an ideal solution 

to incorporate deflection as a gateway treatment and slow 

motorists at the start of a main street. Where right-of-way is 

insufficient, chicanes, changes to horizontal alignment, or 

raised medians should be considered as gateway treatments.

TRAVEL ALONG MAIN STREET

While transition areas and gateway treatments can reduce 

speeds approaching and exiting main street environments, 

motorists may resume higher speeds unless additional visual 

and physical cues are provided along the route through town. 

Traffic calming measures such as landscaping, street trees, 

curb extensions, on-street parking 13 , and narrower lanes 

14 should be considered along the main street. For more 

information, refer to the design topics on Traffic Calming and 

Design Speed and Design Criteria and Lane Width.

9

11

10

12

8

13 14
28 TRANSITIONS TO MAIN STREETS

CASE STUDIES

In 2014, the Oregon Department of Transportation and the City 

of Sisters reconstructed a portion of U.S. 20 which operates 

as both a freight route and a main street. U.S. 20 has an 

average annual daily traffic of 12,000 vehicles/day and passes 

through a business district that attracts tourists. Initially, 

the project’s goal was to repave the quickly deteriorating 

roadway and replace the sidewalk, but it quickly turned into a 

revitalization effort. To create a safer pedestrian environment, 

the project incorporated traffic calming measures such as 

curb extensions, on-street parking, landscaping, and widening 

the sidewalk to 8 feet. One intersection was widened to 

allow freight trucks to more easily navigate turns, while other 

intersections were improved to reduce turning speeds and 

crossing distances.

In 2012, U.S. 2 in Danville, VT, was reconstructed to create a 

pedestrian-focused main street. Outside of Danville, U.S. 2 is a 

truck route and approximately 11 percent of its daily traffic is 

heavy vehicles. As the roadway transitions from countryside to 

town, speed limits change from 50 mi/h to 30 mi/h. Geometric 

design changes reinforce this reduction in speed: lane 

widths are narrowed from 12 to 11 feet, and the 5- and 6-foot 

shoulders are narrowed to 3 feet to make room for a sidewalk. 

Gateway treatments, such as signs, fence posts, and traffic 

islands signal the change in environment. Finally, a flashing 

yellow light—located at the central intersection and surrounded 

by local businesses and community spaces—was converted to 

a full traffic signal to facilitate pedestrian crossings.

In the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains, the U.S. 50 traffic 

calming corridor begins in the village of Lenah in southeastern 

Loudoun County and extends westward to the intersection 

of U.S. 17 near the Clarke County border. It includes the 

rural communities of Aldie, Middleburg, and Upperville. The 

roadway’s 50 mi/h speed limit reduces to 25 mi/h approaching 

each main street area. The communities along U.S. 50 

participated in a traffic calming plan as an alternate to building 

a four-lane bypass. Several projects have been implemented 

and some are underway. Roundabouts were a major element 

of the traffic calming measures. Other elements include 

raised medians, curb extensions, high visibility crosswalks, 

on-street parking, street trees, and raised intersections. 

Gateway treatments include stamped concrete bands placed 

at increasing intervals approaching town, curbing, lane and 

shoulder narrowing, and introduction of a median.

Source: Oregon Department of Transportation

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation

Source: Nicholas Meltzer, VT Agency of Transportation

TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES RTE. 50

ALDIE, MIDDLEBURG AND UPPERVILLE, VA

CASCADES AVENUE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

SISTERS, OR

DANVILLE TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

DANVILLE, VT
29

Road Diets are the reconfiguration of one or more travel lanes 

to calm traffic and provide space for bicycle lanes, turn lanes, 

streetscapes, wider sidewalks, and other purposes. Four- to 

three-lane conversions are the most common Road Diet, but 

there are numerous types (e.g., three to two lanes, or five to 

three lanes). FHWA has identified Road Diets as a Proven Safety 

Countermeasure and an Every Day Counts initiative.

Street are typically designed based on a forecast of future traffic 

volumes. In many cases, these estimates were either incorrect 

or circumstances have changed, resulting in fewer vehicles 

than anticipated. The outcome is excess capacity and streets 

that encourage fast speeds, and create poor conditions for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. 

Road Diets offer a way to rebalance the street to meet the 

needs of all users. A conventional approach to evaluate the 

feasibility of a Road Diet is to evaluate the impact on vehicles, 

not people. Guidance at the national level provides the flexibility 

to apply engineering judgment to assess the project holistically, 

incorporating performance measures for all modes and 

community goals.

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES

The 2010 TRB Highway Capacity Manual emphasizes the 

importance of applying engineering judgment to consider a 

range of performance measures in the analyses:

“Analysts and decision-makers should always be mindful that neither 

LOS [Level of Service] or any other single performance measure tells 

the full story of roadway performance.” 

TRB Highway Capacity Manual 2010, p. 8-11

“As always, engineering judgment should be applied to any 

recommendations resulting from HCM (or alternative tool) analyses.” 

TRB Highway Capacity Manual 2010, p. 8-20

“Added to the direct safety benefits, a Road Diet can improve the 

quality of life in the corridor through a combination of bicycle lanes, 

pedestrian improvements, and reduced speed differential, which can 

improve the comfort level for all users.”

FHWA Road Diet Guide 2014, p. 10 

“Road Diets have many benefits, often reducing crashes; improving 

operations; and improving livability for pedestrians, bicyclists, 

adjacent residents, businesses, and motorists.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-30 

“Three-lane roadways...create opportunities for pedestrian refuges 

at midblock and intersection crossings and eliminate the common 

‘multiple threat’ hazards pedestrians experience crossing four-lane 

roads.”

ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 148

“Vibrant cities are active 24 hours a day. Streets designed for peak 

intervals of traffic flow relieve rush hour congestion, but may fail to 

provide a safe and attractive environment during other portions of the 

day.”

NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 148

ROAD DIETS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
30 ROAD DIETS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

VOLUME THRESHOLDS

Volume thresholds, often average daily traffic (ADT), can 

initially approximate whether a road diet is appropriate given 

the proposed number of lanes; however, if volumes are at 

the upper limits of the threshold, designers should consider 

further analysis. Communities have varying ADT or peakhour thresholds and some have had success with Road Diets 

on roads that exceed initial thresholds. “Road Diet projects 

have been completed on roadways with relatively high traffic 

volumes in urban areas or near larger cities with satisfactory 

results” (FHWA Road Diet Guide 2014, p. 17). 

MOTOR VEHICLE LEVEL OF SERVICE THRESHOLDS

The 2010 TRB Highway Capacity Manual provides methods 

for evaluating the multimodal performance of highways in 

terms of operations and quality of service. It defines Level 

of Service (LOS) as a quantitative measure, but does not set 

LOS standards. Local jurisdictions have flexibility in the use 

of motor vehicle LOS standards. The AASHTO Green Book

provides guidance for desirable LOS for different contexts 

and states that the designer has the latitude to choose an 

appropriate LOS (2010, pp. 2-66–2-77). FHWA does not have 

regulations or policies that require specific minimum LOS 

values for projects on the NHS. The recommended values 

in the Green Book are regarded as guidance only. (USDOT 

Memorandum, Level of Service on the National Highway 

System, 2016). This memo goes on to say that designers 

should take several factors into account in addition to 

traffic projections such as land use, context, and agency 

transportation goals, when planning and designing projects. 

In jurisdictions where LOS criteria are established, the FHWA 

Flexibility in Highway Design says, “the selection of a level of 

service that is lower than what is usually recommended may 

be appropriate” to achieve safety goals or to support adjacent 

land uses (1997, p. 61). In fact, some States and jurisdictions 

are prioritizing other factors above motor vehicle LOS and 

relying on it less often as a measure of roadway effectiveness. 

TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS

A conventional roadway design approach is to build and 

operate a facility to accommodate for vehicle traffic forecasts 

that could occur during the design life of a facility. However, 

in many cases “the streets were built to accommodate a 

projected volume that never materialized,” resulting in streets 

that have underutilized vehicle travel lanes and may not 

support community goals (e.g., safety, economic activity, 

livability) (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-30). 

It is important for designers to recognize that transportation 

patterns and habits across the country are changing: fewer 

Americans are driving alone to work, the number of miles 

driven per capita is stabilizing, and rates of walking, bicycling, 

and transit use are up. These trends should be factored into 

decisions about future vehicle volume estimates. 

Additionally, designers historically developed trip generation 

estimates based on data collected from suburban car-oriented 

developments. The 2012 ITE Trip Generation Manual has new 

techniques for estimating trip generation for all modes and for 

mixed-used developments. Research is ongoing regarding the 

best practices for trip generation estimates for a larger variety 

of land uses and modes of travel. 

DESIGN HOUR OR PEAK HOUR

On conventional roadway projects, vehicle volumes during 

the busiest hour of the day are used to evaluate motor vehicle 

LOS. Street utilization varies throughout the day and some 

communities are implementing Road Diets because off-peak 

needs and potential safety benefits outweigh the potential 

increases in delay or travel time during the peak hour. The TRB 

Highway Capacity Manual 2010 provides for flexibility when 

considering analysis results. Specifically, it states that “the 

existence of a LOS F condition does not, by itself, indicate that 

action must be taken to correct the condition” and goes on to 

say that other issues should be considered, such as safety and 

pedestrian and bicyclist needs (TRB Highway Capacity Manual 

2010, p. 8-5).

THE POWER OF SMALLER STREETS

AND A STREET NETWORK

Wide streets with multiple travel lanes and turn lanes at 

intersections are less efficient in terms of motor vehicle 

capacity than a denser network of streets with fewer travel 

lanes. Research has shown that “the marginal capacity 

increase of additional lanes decreases as the size of the 

intersection increases” (ITE Effectiveness of Additional 

Lanes at Signalized Intersections 2003, p. 26). This is due to 

additional signal phases needed to control turning movements, 

the width of intersection crossings, and other factors. 

An interconnected street network with narrower streets 

(fewer travel lanes) and smaller intersections operates more 

efficiently because it processes more turning traffic, shortens 

pedestrian crossings, and provides more route choices for all 

modes. 

Road Diets can therefore be used as one part of an overall 

strategy to reduce the width of existing streets and provide a 

denser street network.

SAFETY BENEFITS OF A ROAD DIET

The common four- to three-lane Road Diet has proven safety 

benefits with “a 19 to 47 percent reduction in overall crashes” 

(FHWA Road Diet Guide 2014, p. 7). Added two-way left-turn 

lanes 1 reduce the number of potential conflict points, 

while slower operating speeds typical of this type of Road 

Diet reduce the severity of crashes that do occur. In addition 

to the reduction of speed, pedestrian safety benefits include 

potentially reduced crossing distances, space for refuge 
ROAD DIETS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS 31

islands, and elimination of multiple threat crashes (FHWA Road 

Diet Guide 2014, p. 7). Road Diets often result in a dedicated 

space for standard or separated bike lanes. 2 For more 

information, refer to the design topics on Separated Bike 

Lanes and Separated Bike Lanes at Intersections. Additionally, 

refer to the design topic on Transit Conflicts for information on 

managing bus and bike conflicts. 

TRANSIT BENEFITS OF A ROAD DIET

Road Diets present an opportunity for transit agencies and 

local jurisdictions to coordinate improvements for transit 

passengers and evaluate the effects on all roadway users. As 

part of the Road Diet, bus stops may be moved, consolidated, 

or upgraded to reduce delay, enhance the passenger 

experience, or better align with pedestrian crossings and 

desire lines. Where on-street parking is retained, consider bus 

bulbs for added amenity space and to eliminate inefficient 

in-and-out operations associated with pull-out spaces. At 

signalized intersections, consider implementing signal priority 

for buses and restricting parking on intersection approaches 

to provide queue-jump lanes. In some instances it may be 

feasible to implement dedicated bus lanes through a Road 

Diet. (FHWA Road Diet Guide 2014, pp. 20–21)

LANE WIDTH

Local jurisdictions have flexibility in determining appropriate 

lane width. The TRB Highway Capacity Manual recognizes that 

there is minimal difference in motor vehicle capacity for travel 

lanes between 10 and 12.9 feet at signalized intersections 

(2010, p. 18-36) and does not provide any capacity factors for 

lane widths in this range. For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Design Criteria and Lane Width.

AFTER ROAD DIET

BEFORE ROAD DIET

1

2
32 ROAD DIETS AND TRAFFIC ANALYSIS

CASE STUDIES

In 2009, the Virginia Department of Transportation completed 

a Road Diet for two miles of Lawyers Road as part of a routine 

repaving project. The project reduced the four-lane roadway 

to one travel lane and one 5-foot bike lane in each direction 

separated by a continuous two-way left-turn lane. Since 

completion, crashes fell by 68 percent after 5 years, average 

speeds fell by 1 mi/h, and drivers traveling over 50 mi/h 

fell from 13 percent of daily traffic to 1 percent. The VDOT 

Newsroom Website noted that a 2010 follow-up survey of 

drivers, bicyclists, and residents found that “69 percent said the 

road felt safer, 47 percent said they cycled more on Lawyers, 

69 percent said their car trips did not take any longer with the 

new configuration, and 74 percent said the project improved 

Lawyers Road” (http://www.virginiadot.org/newsroom/

northern_virginia/2011/second_road_diet_on54423.asp).

LAWYERS ROAD

RESTON, VA

In 2007, the City of Seattle implemented a road diet on 1.2 

miles of Stone Way North, converting four travel lanes to 

two travel lanes with a center turn lane and bicycle climbing 

lane. The Road Diet reduced travel speeds and collision rates 

while increasing bicycle volumes. The 85th percentile speed 

decreased and traffic volumes remained consistent with 

citywide trends without diversion onto adjacent streets. Based 

on crash data for two years before and two years after Road 

Diet implementation, total crashes declined by 14 percent 

and injury collisions declined by 33 percent. Bicycle volumes 

increased by 35 percent along the corridor.

STONE WAY NORTH

SEATTLE, WA

In 2014, the City of Chicago completed a Road Diet on threequarters of a mile of W Lawrence Avenue, transforming the 

four-lane street to two travel lanes and a center turn lane. The 

remaining right-of-way was reallocated to wider sidewalks 

for outdoor dining, public art, improved pedestrian access, 

and standard bike lanes. Additional improvements included 

pedestrian safety measures (e.g., curb extensions/bulb-outs, 

refuge islands, and prominent crosswalks made from red 

asphalt), street trees, and rain gardens. Despite having daily 

traffic of approximately 30,000 vehicles/day, much higher than 

the typical threshold for a four-to-three lane road diet, the road 

diet is largely considered a success by community members.

W LAWRENCE AVENUE

CHICAGO, IL

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation

Source: John Greenfield, Streetsblog Chicago
33

Crossings, whether midblock or at an intersection, should provide 

safe and comfortable locations for people to cross the street. A 

crossing location should offer adequate gaps between vehicles 

and encourage motorist yielding or stopping to allow pedestrians 

to cross. 

To justify the installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon or 

traffic signal, the MUTCD 2009 has warrants based primarily 

on pedestrian volumes and vehicle volumes. These warrants 

are used to help allocate limited financial resources. In some 

cases, pedestrians may not be crossing the street in sufficient 

numbers to satisfy the warrant because there are not adequate 

gaps in traffic or they do not feel comfortable doing so. This is 

the common “chicken or the egg” problem: a certain volume of 

pedestrians is required to meet the warrant to install a beacon or 

signal, yet pedestrians need enhanced crossing treatments to feel 

comfortable crossing the street. The unintended consequence 

of this scenario is that street environments have frequently been 

built in a manner that discourages walking. 

Designers may use a variety of treatments to create convenient 

and comfortable crossings for pedestrians. These include median 

crossing islands, signs, Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, 

pedestrian hybrid beacons, and traffic signals. Existing guidance 

encourages the use of engineering judgment to develop a 

justification for the installation of a marked crosswalk, pedestrian 

hybrid beacon, a traffic signal, or other crossing treatments.

The MUTCD includes flexibility for the designer to consider 

factors besides traffic volume during an engineering study 

to justify the installation of a beacon or traffic signal. It 

also suggests that even if a traffic signal warrant is met, 

other treatments (at the designer’s discretion) may be more 

appropriate to create a safe crossing: 

“An engineering study of traffic conditions, pedestrian characteristics, 

and physical characteristics of the location shall be performed to 

determine whether installation of a traffic control signal is justified at a 

particular location.”

MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4C.01

“Consideration should be given to providing alternatives to traffic 

control signals even if one or more of the signal warrants has been 

satisfied.” 

 MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4B.04

“Where signalized or stop-controlled pedestrian crossings are not 

warranted but demand exists or is anticipated, designers should 

continue to work toward goals of safety and comfort for people 

walking through other means, such as actuated crossings or enhanced 

crossing treatments.” 

 NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 110

“If traffic and roadway characteristics make crossing difficult for 

the path user, the need for a signal or active warning device (such 

as a beacon) should be considered based on traffic volumes, speed, 

number of lanes, and availability of a refuge.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-38 

“When the spacing of intersection crossings is far apart or when 

the pedestrian destination is directly across the street, pedestrians 

will cross where necessary to get to their destination conveniently, 

exposing themselves to traffic where drivers might not expect them. 

Midblock crossings, therefore, respond to pedestrian behavior. 

Properly designed and visible midblock crosswalks, signals and 

warning signs warn drivers of potential pedestrians, protect crossing 

pedestrians and encourage walking in high-activity areas.“

 ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 136

ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
34 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

LAND USE CONTEXT EXAMPLE

LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS

It is important for designers to consider the existing, 

anticipated, and desired use of the potential crossing location 

both midblock and at intersections. Major factors include land 

uses on either side of the street and walking distances without 

and with the crosswalks. For example, if a senior center is 

located on one side of an intersection and a library on the other 

and the nearest crossing is greater than 300 feet in walking 

distance, an enhanced marked crossing should be considered. 

1 If a community center is located near the center of a long 

block and a bus stop exists on the opposite side of the street, 

this location should be considered for a midblock crossing. 2

The AASHTO Pedestrian Guide emphasizes the importance of 

midblock crossings in areas where intersections are spaced 

relatively far apart and there are pedestrian generators on both 

sides of the street: “Midblock crossings are preferred because 

pedestrians should not be expected to make excessive 

or inconvenient diversions in their travel path to cross at 

an intersection” (2004, p. 89). In all locations, enhanced 

pedestrian crossing treatments should be considered based 

on the number of vehicle travel lanes, and speed and volume of 

vehicular traffic. 

WHEN TO MARK A CROSSWALK

Careful consideration should be given to when to mark a 

crosswalk and when enhanced crossing treatments are 

needed. The MUTCD states that “crosswalk lines should not be 

used indiscriminately” (2009, Sec. 3B.18). Before a crosswalk 

is installed at a midblock location, an engineering study 

should be completed and include several factors such as the 

number of lanes, distance to adjacent signalized intersections, 

pedestrian and vehicle volumes, and vehicle speeds. 

At crossing locations with relatively high traffic volumes and 

speeds and longer crossing distances, designers should 

consider enhanced crossing treatments (e.g., crossing island, 

signal, or signing) to supplement a marked crosswalk. FHWA 

Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at 

Uncontrolled Locations recommends substantial crossing 

improvements be installed to supplement a marked crosswalk 

under any of the following conditions: 

• where the speed limit exceeds 40 mi/h.

• on a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised 

median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an 

ADT of 12,000 or greater.

2 1

• on a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median 

or crossing island that has (or soon will have) an ADT of 

15,000 or greater. (2005, p. 52)

It is a misinterpretation of this study to conclude it is 

undesirable to mark a crosswalk in locations that meet 

those conditions. The proper conclusion of the study is to 

supplement the marked crossing with enhanced crossing 

treatments to provide a convenient and safe crossing. 

TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR BEACON WARRANT STUDY

There is a great deal of flexibility in applying warrants to 

determine if a traffic signal or beacon is needed at a pedestrian 

crossing. Before a traffic signal or beacon is installed, an 

engineering study must be completed to determine if the 

installation of a traffic control signal will improve the overall 

safety and/or operation of the intersection (MUTCD 2009, 

Sec. 4C.01). NACTO Urban Street Design Guide recommends 

that designers “take into account both existing as well as 

projected crossing demand” (2013, p. 110). Designers have the 

flexibility to estimate demand if the absence of a signal limits 

crossing opportunities of potential users, especially the young, 

elderly, or persons with disabilities (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4C.01). 

Additionally, where “it is not possible to obtain a traffic count 

that would represent future traffic conditions, hourly volumes 

should be estimated” (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4C.01). 

Three of the eight warrants outlined in the MUTCD are used 

as justification for the installation of a signal for pedestrians. 

These are: Warrant 4 (Pedestrian Crossing), Warrant 5 (School 

Crossing), and Warrant 7 (Crash Experience). The criterion for 

Warrant 4 (Pedestrian Crossing) can be reduced by 50 percent 

if the “15th-percentile crossing speed of pedestrians is less 

than 3.5 feet per second” (2009, Sec. 4C.05). 

An additional warrant for a pedestrian hybrid beacon 3 is 

provided in Chapter 4F of the MUTCD 2009. A pedestrian 

hybrid beacon can be used at locations where warrants for 

a signal are not satisfied or locations where warrants are 

satisfied but a decision is made not to install a signal. 

ADDITIONAL CROSSING TREATMENTS

In addition to marking crosswalks and installing traffic signals 

or beacons, designers have the flexibility to use a variety of 

treatments such as rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, pedestrian 

crossing islands, and advance yield/stop lines and signing.

Walking distance with crosswalk Walking distance without crosswalk
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON AND CROSSING ISLAND

ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS 35

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON AND CROSSING ISLAND

3

5

5 6

6

4

RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS

At uncontrolled crossings where a signal or pedestrian 

hybrid beacon is not warranted, cost prohibitive, or deemed 

unnecessary designers should consider supplementing 

pedestrian, bicycle/pedestrian, or school crossing warning 

signs with Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs). 

4 Generally, this treatment should be used with caution at 

crossings with more than two lanes without a refuge. FWHA 

Effects of Yellow Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons on 

Yielding at Multilane Uncontrolled Crosswalks found an 

88-percent average compliance rate for motorists yielding to 

pedestrians at crossings with RRFBs; this rate was sustained 

after 2 years (2010, p. 9). 

PEDESTRIAN CROSSING ISLANDS

Raised medians or pedestrian crossing islands are a Proven 

Safety Countermeasure and have demonstrated a 46-percent 

reduction in pedestrian crashes. Pedestrian refuge areas or 

islands 5 allow pedestrians to cross the street in two stages 

and significantly reduce the distance a pedestrian must cross 

at one time. The AASHTO Pedestrian Guide states that a 

crossing island should be considered “where the crossing 

exceeds 60 ft” (2004, p. 90). FHWA Safety Effects of Marked 

Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations

found that providing raised medians on multilane roads 

“can significantly reduce the pedestrian crash rate and also 

facilitate street crossing” (2005, p. 55). However, on roadways 

with a raised median and volumes exceeding 15,000 ADT, a 

marked crosswalk is appropriate only with additional crossing 

treatments. Crossing islands should be a minimum of 6 feet 

wide (ITE Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares 2010, p. 

141). At locations where bicycles may be crossing, such as 

where a shared use path crosses a roadway, “10 ft is preferred 

in order to accommodate a bicycle with a trailer” (AASHTO 

Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-48).

ADVANCE YIELD/STOP LINES AND SIGNING

Advance yield/stop lines and signing 6 can be installed 

at locations where there are concerns about multiple threat 

crashes. 7 They indicate to drivers the appropriate location 

to yield or stop so that they do not “place pedestrians at risk 

by blocking other drivers’ views of pedestrians and by blocking 

pedestrians’ views of vehicles approaching in the other lanes” 

(MUTCD 2009, Sec. 3B.16). Additionally, parking should be 

prohibited in between the yield or stop line and the crosswalk 

to increase visibility.

7

7
36 ENHANCED CROSSING TREATMENTS

CASE STUDIES

In 2001, the City of Seattle completed a detailed inventory 

analysis of 622 marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations. 

Crosswalks were rated based on traffic volume, number of 

lanes, and speed. In 2002, the City released a multi-year 

Improvement Plan for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks that 

addressed identified deficiencies. Rather than just decide 

“yes” or “no” on whether to mark a crosswalk, the improvement 

plan asks “what are the most effective measures that can be 

used to help pedestrians safely cross the street?” The plan 

was implemented over a period of six years. Deficiencies were 

addressed with signing, markings, crossing islands, road and 

lane diets, rectangular rapid flash beacons, pedestrian signals, 

and other ADA improvements.

IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR UNCONTROLLED MARKED 

CROSSWALKS

SEATTLE, WA

As part of the SE Bush neighborhood greenway project, the 

Portland Bureau of Transportation installed a pedestrian hybrid 

beacon at the SE Bush Street crossing of 122nd Avenue in 

July 2012. Counts at this location did not meet the pedestrian 

hybrid beacon warrant prior to installation. However, engineers 

designed the intersection to accommodate 50–100 bicycle and 

pedestrian crossings during the peak hour based on previous 

experience where bicycle and pedestrian volumes increased 

following installation of other neighborhood greenways in the 

City. December 2013 counts indicated that pedestrian hybrid 

beacon warrants are satisfied at this location.

SE BUSH STREET AND 122ND AVENUE PEDESTRIAN 

HYBRID BEACON

PORTLAND, OR

A Safe Routes to School action plan for Amidon-Bowen 

Elementary School evaluated the intersection of Makemie 

Place and I Street SW for a potential crosswalk. Prior to 

the study, schoolchildren had to cross I Street SW at one of 

two signalized intersections approximately 600 feet apart 

to access the main school entrance. The City installed a 

marked crosswalk halfway between these intersections at 

the T-intersection of Makemie Place SW along with warning 

signs, a crossing island, and curb extensions to increase 

driver awareness of the crossing, reduce vehicle speeds, and 

increase the pedestrian queuing area. This crossing also 

connected bus stops on both sides of I Street SW. Crosswalk 

signs were installed as part of an experiment and are noncompliant.

I STREET AT MAKEMIE PLACE, SW

WASHINGTON, DC

Source: Scott Batson, City of Portland Bureau of Transportation
37

Traffic signals manage traffic flow by separating and allocating time 

to specific movements. They can reduce conflicts between motor 

vehicles, transit vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Traffic signal 

design, which includes detection, phasing, timing, and equipment, 

should provide a safe and predictable environment for all users, 

especially the most vulnerable.

Conventional traffic engineering practice focuses on reducing delay 

to motor vehicles and improving vehicle throughput at signalized 

intersections. However, traffic signal timing and phasing should 

consider delay and safety impacts to all users. Traffic signals 

should be designed to meet the needs of all users through the use 

of appropriate detection, cycle lengths, phasing, interval timings, 

and equipment. Additionally, designers should consider the unique 

operating characteristics of each expected user type throughout 

the signal design and process of determining the most appropriate 

signal timing.

It is particularly important to evaluate potential conflicts between 

turning motorists with pedestrians and bicyclists where left-turns are 

permissive (i.e., vehicles can turn left on a circular green indication). 

In a 2015 study, the City of Seattle found that the most significant 

crash type for pedestrians and bicyclists was a turning motorist 

crossing their path. At signalized intersections, left-turning motorists 

accounted for 26 percent of bicyclist crashes and 49 percent of 

pedestrian crashes. Right turning motorists accounted for 24 

percent of bicyclist crashes and 21 percent of pedestrian crashes at 

signalized intersections. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Turning Vehicles.

According to MUTCD, a traffic signal design should consider 

pedestrian and bicyclist needs: 

“The design and operation of traffic control signals shall take into 

consideration the needs of pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic.”

2009, Sec. 4D.03

“On bikeways, signal timing and actuation shall be reviewed and 

adjusted to consider the needs of bicyclists.”

2009, Sec. 9D.02

“Elements, such as crosswalk treatments, signal location, and signal 

timing, should account for pedestrians and other roadway users.”

AASHTO Ped Guide 2004, p. 49

“Actuated traffic signals should detect bicycles; otherwise, a bicyclists 

may be unable to call a green signal...Various technologies are 

available for detecting bicycles.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-47

“Vehicle stops and delay may be less important than transit and 

pedestrians priority in a CBD, as well as other existing or developing 

areas with significant pedestrian, bicycle, and transit activity. The 

practitioner needs to make appropriate adjustments to the traffic 

signal timing process to account for the operating environment and 

user priorities.”

Transportation Research Board. NCHRP Report 212: Signal Timing Manual. 

2015, pp. 1-2–1-3

“Urban applications for traffic control devices expand to a multimodal 

transportation system, not just providing for vehicular traffic.”

ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook, p. 206

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
38 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

Pedestrians and bicyclists have a fundamental need to cross 

roads safely and efficiently at signalized intersections. There 

is a great deal of inherent flexibility in signal design and 

there are many new advances that have a positive impact on 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety at signalized intersections. This 

resource covers several of these strategies. However, this is a 

complex area of roadway design and other reference manuals 

and guidebooks should be consulted for more information, 

including MUTCD 2009, AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, 

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 

2013, and NCHRP Report 212: Signal Timing Manual 2015. 

The conventional vehicle-based approach to evaluating 

signalized intersections may involve relatively high traffic 

projections, emphasize the peak hour, and focus on minimizing 

motor vehicle delay. This approach can result in relatively poor 

conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians. Designers may use 

qualitative measures to assess non-motor-vehicle-oriented 

operational objectives to consider in the evaluation process. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on Road Diets 

and Traffic Analysis.

PEDESTRIAN CONSIDERATIONS

The needs of all pedestrians should be taken into account 

when designing traffic signals at intersections where they 

can be expected to cross. Pedestrian safety, comfort, and 

convenience at intersections is fundamentally impacted by 

several major design decisions:

CYCLE LENGTH 

When pedestrians are faced with long delays, they are more 

likely to ignore signals entirely and cross the road when they 

perceive a gap in traffic. Therefore, strategies to reduce 

overall cycle length are particularly important for pedestrian 

safety. In addition to reducing cycle lengths, designers should 

also consider using half-cycle lengths, particularly during 

off-peak hours. Cycle lengths also have similar implications 

for bicyclists. The NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

recommends cycle lengths between 60–90 seconds for urban 

areas (2013, p. 131).

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL HEADS

Pedestrians need to be able to see signal indications (walking 

person/upraised hand or green/yellow/red) to know when it is 

safe to cross. An engineering study should be completed to 

determine if pedestrian signal heads and countdown displays 

are needed. Factors include signal phasing, intersection 

geometry complexity, and visibility of vehicular signal 

indications (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4E.03–4E.07). Pedestrian 

signals must be accessible to people with disabilities. For 

more information, refer to the design topic on Accessibility. 

AUTOMATIC PEDESTRIAN PHASES

At locations with high pedestrian volumes, pedestrians should 

not be required to push a button to call the pedestrian phase. 

Studies show that only about 50 percent of pedestrians 

actually press the push buttons. This is because in locations 

with longer pedestrian delays and without automatic 

pedestrian phases, pedestrians may have the impression that 

the push button is either non-responsive or malfunctioning. All 

intersections regardless of whether the pedestrian phase is 

automatic or requires actuation must be accessible for people 

with disabilities. This commonly means that accessible pushbuttons are installed in locations with automatic pedestrian 

phases. For more information, refer to design topic on 

Accessibility.

PROTECTED CROSSING PHASES 

Allowing drivers to turn right or left during a pedestrian WALK 

signal is a frequent cause of crashes between pedestrians 

and drivers. Often drivers do not realize they are required 

to yield to pedestrians in these situations and fail to do 

so. Dedicated right- and left- turning phases and exclusive 

pedestrians phases can improve pedestrian safety. Designers 

should conduct an engineering study to determine if this is an 

appropriate solution.

1 LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

MAJOR STREET

PEDESTRIANS 

MAJOR STREET

PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLES, THROUGH & RIGHTS

MAJOR STREET

LEFTS

MOVEMENTS

PEDESTRIAN BICYCLE MOTOR VEHICLE
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 39

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL

A leading pedestrian interval 1 typically gives pedestrians “a 

3–7 second head start when entering an intersection” before 

the vehicle phase (NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 

128). This can increase the visibility of pedestrians and reduce 

conflicts. The MUTCD says that leading pedestrian intervals 

“may be used to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and 

turning vehicles” (2009, Sec. 4E.06). 

EXCLUSIVE PEDESTRIAN PHASE

Also known as a pedestrian scramble or Barnes Dance, an 

exclusive pedestrian phase occurs when all pedestrians may 

cross while all vehicular traffic is stopped. This treatment 

may be considered where there are relatively high volumes of 

pedestrians, equal desire lines in all directions, higher turning 

vehicle movements, or at intersections with restricted sight 

distance or complex intersection geometry. This treatment 

“can produce a safer operation over conventional phasing, but 

delay for both pedestrians and motorists is always higher than 

conventional signal timing” (AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, 

p. 103). This increase in delay for pedestrians may result in 

pedestrians crossing with concurrent vehicular movements. 

Designers should consider whether pedestrians could also 

be able to cross with concurrent vehicular movements. In 

some scenarios, a leading pedestrian interval may be a more 

appropriate solution. If a diagonal crossing is used, designers 

must consider how a person with a visual disability would 

know that they could cross diagonally.

RIGHT TURN ON RED

Right Turn on Red (RTOR) introduces pedestrian safety 

concerns because drivers scanning for gaps in traffic on their 

left may not look for pedestrians on their right. Drivers are 

likely to encroach into the crosswalk while watching oncoming 

vehicles, further eroding pedestrian safety and comfort. These 

conflicts can be reduced by restricting RTOR movements. 

The FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure 

Selection System suggests that “prohibiting RTOR should 

be considered where exclusive pedestrian phases or high 

pedestrian volumes are present” (2013). 

Right Turn on Red should be prohibited where bicyclists wait 

in front of motor vehicles, such as at bike boxes and twostage turn queue boxes (both are subject to experimentation). 

Designers should also consider prohibiting RTOR where bicycle 

movements may be unexpected, such as at crossings of 

contra-flow or two-way separated bike lanes.

SIGNAL TIMING FOR BICYCLISTS

Bicycles have different operating speeds, acceleration rates, 

and deceleration rates than motor vehicles. Adjustments to 

minimum green times, clearance intervals, and extension times 

can allow bicyclists to clear the intersection before opposing 

traffic is released (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-22). At 

locations with high vehicular speeds and long crossing 

distances, bicyclists are more likely to have different signal 

timing needs than motor vehicles.

If used in combination with bicycle detection and permitted 

by the controller, bicycle-specific timing parameters can be 

employed for the specific times when a bicycle is present. If 

bicycle detection is not available, the bicycle-timing needs 

should be incorporated into the overall signal timing settings 

in the controller. The AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 provides 

additional details on bike detection and signal timing.

BICYCLE SIGNALS

On-road bicyclists typically use the same traffic signals as 

vehicles. However, at intersections where bicyclists cannot 

see vehicle signal faces or where bicyclists have a separate 

directional movement, phase, or interval, designers should 

consider alternate signalization options. The BIKES USE PED 

SIGNAL sign 2 (MUTCD R9-5) “may be used where the 

crossing of a street by bicyclists is controlled by pedestrian 

signal indications” (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 9B.11). However, 

a bicycle signal 3 is more suitable as it can be timed for 

bicyclist speeds increasing the time a bicyclist may legally 

enter the roadway compared to a pedestrian signal. The MUTCD

instructs that 8-inch circular signal indications may be used 

“in a signal face installed for the sole purpose of controlling a 

bikeway or a bicycle movement” and can be installed without 

requesting approval (2009, Sec. 4D.07). In December 2013, 

FHWA issued an Interim Approval for the Optional Use of 

Bicycle Signal Faces. 4 A bicycle signal face may only 

be used with a protected phase. Designers should request 

permission from FHWA before installing a bicycle signal face. 

ADDITIONAL SIGNAL CONSIDERATIONS

For additional information on other topics related to traffic 

signal design, such as signal priority for transit services and 

emergency vehicles, see NCHRP Report 212: Signal Timing 

Manual 2015.

BIKE SIGNALIZATION ALTERNATIVES

2 3 4
40 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

CASE STUDIES

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has 

implemented leading pedestrian intervals at intersections 

throughout Washington, DC. Beginning with 20 intersections 

that have a history of crashes involving right-turning vehicles 

hitting pedestrians in the crosswalk while the WALK or flashing 

DON’T WALK signal indication was displayed. The program 

has expanded to over 130 intersections based on count 

data showing high pedestrian and turning-vehicle volumes 

and public feedback. DDOT is currently reviewing additional 

potential locations for leading pedestrian intervals as part of 

a signal optimization study, which will have evaluated all 1,650 

signalized intersections in the District when complete.

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS

WASHINGTON, DC

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) 

implemented its first “green wave” on Valencia Street as 

a pilot project in 2011. The “green wave” is a coordinated 

signal system designed for bicyclists traveling at moderate 

speeds, rather than the traditional coordination plan designed 

for vehicle speeds. The Valencia Street coordination plan 

serves bicyclists traveling in both directions, and signs notify 

bicyclists that the signals are timed for the 13-mi/h speed. 

The “green wave” has an added traffic-calming benefit since 

motor vehicles benefit from traveling at the designated 

speed. In 2011, SFMTA made the Valencia Street Green Wave 

a permanent feature and has continued implementing the 

strategy on other bikeways throughout the city.

VALENCIA STREET GREEN WAVE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

In 2014, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) 

implemented a two-way separated bike lane on 2nd Avenue. 

Designers used dedicated left-turn phasing to eliminate 

conflicts between left-turning vehicles and bicyclists and 

pedestrians. The project also included RTOR restrictions at 

conflicting cross streets and created a bicycle facility that is 

phase-separated at signalized intersections along the corridor. 

This project is the first phase of a multi-phased effort to create 

a comprehensive, connected network of separated bike lanes 

into and through downtown Seattle. Data collected in October 

2014 indicated an 85-percent motorist compliance and 

92-percent bicyclist compliance rate.

2ND AVENUE PROTECTED PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PHASE

SEATTLE, WA

Source: Matt Johnson, Montgomery County Department of Transportation 
41

Paved shoulders provide a recovery area for errant motor 

vehicles, and lengthen the lifespan of the roadway by providing 

pavement structure support, reducing edge deterioration, 

and improving drainage. Paved shoulders significantly reduce 

maintenance costs and are proven to reduce crashes. Paved 

shoulders provide space for pedestrian and bicycle travel, which 

facilitates safer passing behaviors and improves comfort for all 

users. 

Paved shoulders serve many purposes. All users should be 

considered to develop the most appropriate design given the 

intended use of the shoulder. Designers have flexibility in 

determining when to pave shoulders, as well as on factors such 

as shoulder width and rumble strip design and placement. 

The AASHTO Green Book states the advantages and varied 

uses of paved shoulders. It also provides ranges for paved 

shoulder widths: 

“Paved shoulders advantages include providing a space for pedestrian 

and bicycle use, for bus stops, for occasional encroachment of 

vehicles, for mail delivery vehicles, and for the detouring of traffic 

during construction.” 

2011, p. 4-9

“[Shoulders] vary in width from only 2 ft on minor rural roadways...to 

approximately 12 ft on major roads.” 

2011, p. 4-8

“Wide shoulders and bicycle lanes provide an additional clear area 

adjacent to the traveled way, so these features potentially could 

provide a secondary safety benefit for motorists and can be included 

as part of the clear zone... and also improve the resulting sight 

distance for motor vehicle drivers at intersecting driveways and 

streets.”

 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 2011, p. 10-11

“Adding or improving paved shoulders can greatly improve bicyclist 

accommodation on roadways with higher speeds or traffic volumes, 

as well as benefit motorists...Creating shoulders or bike lanes on 

roadways can improve pedestrian conditions as well by providing a 

buffer between the sidewalk and the roadway.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-7 

“Paving part or all of the shoulder also helps reduce crash rates further 

and helps to facilitate use of the road by bicyclists. Shoulder paving 

also reduces maintenance requirements”

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004, p. 66

PAVED SHOULDERS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
3 TO 4 FT.

SHOULDER

10 TO 11 FT.

TRAVEL LANE

42 PAVED SHOULDERS

2 FT.

SHOULDER

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

SHOULDER WIDTH

Sufficiently wide shoulders can greatly improve bicyclist safety 

and comfort, particularly on higher-speed, higher-volume 

roadways. Shoulders are most often found on rural roadways 

and less often on urban roadways. To accommodate bicyclists, 

a 4-foot or greater paved shoulder width, continuous along the 

length of the roadway and through intersections, should be 

provided. (Use at least 5 feet where guardrails, curbs, or other 

roadside barriers are present.) Designers should consider 

wider shoulders if vehicle speeds are greater than 50 mi/h 

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-7). Designers may use the 

Bicycle Level of Service model, which includes factors for 

vehicle speeds, traffic volumes, and lane widths to determine 

the appropriate shoulder width (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 

4-7).

WHEN TO PAVE SHOULDERS

Designers should consider paving shoulders in all project 

types, particularly in rural settings. The AASHTO Green Book

presents policies concerning shoulder width for specific 

highway functional classes (e.g., local, collector, and arterial 

roads) and it recommends that “usable shoulders on arterials 

be paved” (2011, p. 7-5). Although the AASHTO Green Book 

2011 doesn’t specify that shoulders be paved on local and 

collector streets, designers should consider paved shoulders 

to accommodate bicyclists, and possibly pedestrians, in rural 

areas. 

SHOULDERS AND DIFFERENT PROJECT TYPES

It is important to capture opportunities to include or upgrade 

paved shoulders during all types of roadway projects. 

Designers should weigh the trade-offs such as proven safety 

benefits for all users, construction costs, and cost savings 

over the lifespan of a roadway. Examples of how to capture 

opportunities to provide bicycle-friendly paved shoulders 

during different types of roadway projects include:

RESURFACING AND RESTORATION 

Pavement resurfacing offers an opportunity to reallocate 

roadway space. In some cases, designers should consider 

reducing lane widths to provide more paved shoulder width 

suitable for bicycling. The AASHTO Flexibility Guide states 

that “for lower speed, lower volume rural roads and highways 

with little or no truck traffic, lane widths as low as 9 ft [2.7 

m] may be acceptable” (2004, p. 65). For more information, 

refer to the design topic on Design Criteria and Lane Width. 

For example, in a retrofit situation, the AASHTO Bike Guide 

suggests that a 10- or 11-foot travel lane with a 3- or 4-foot 1

shoulder would be preferable for bicyclists to a 12-foot travel 

lane and 2-foot shoulder 2 (2012, 4-28).

REHABILITATION

Rehabilitating pavements offers an opportunity to add 

pavement width. This project type includes the complete 

replacement of pavements which opens opportunities to add 

paved shoulders as the mainline pavements are replaced. This 

can be an economical and cost-effective way to implement 

this type of enhancement. It is also an opportune time to widen 

narrower paved shoulders, especially if rumble strips are being 

added to the shoulders and additional width is desired to 

provide clear space for bicyclists. 

RECONSTRUCTION AND NEW CONSTRUCTION 

Including paved shoulders when roadways are being newly 

constructed or reconstructed is cost effective and should be 

considered on rural and suburban arterial roadway projects. 

This affords the best opportunity to get a 4-foot or greater 

paved shoulder in place. This is also the time to consider other 

treatments such as separated bike lanes, shared use paths, 

and sidewalks. These treatments may be more desirable 

in urban and suburban locations with higher bicycle and 

pedestrian demand. For more information, refer to design 

topics on Separated Bike Lanes and Shared Use Paths.

1

12 FT.

TRAVEL LANE

14 FT. OVERALL 14 FT. OVERALL

2

EXISTING CONFIGURATION BICYCLE-FRIENDLY CONFIGURATION
by bicyclists. Additional information on rumble strip design 

can be found in the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 and the FHWA 

Rumble Strips and Rumble Stripes Website (http://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/pavement/rumble_strips/).

In constrained locations with a paved shoulder width less than 

4 feet, designers should consider placing rumble strips at the 

far right edge of the pavement to give bicyclists additional 

space near the edge of the lane. 6 Results from NCHRP 

Report 641: Guidance for the Design and Application of 

Shoulder and Centerline Rumble Strips 2009 indicate that 

there may not be a practical difference in the effectiveness of 

rumble strips placed on the edge line or 2 feet or more beyond 

the edge line on two-lane rural roads. 

PEDESTRIAN USE OF SHOULDERS

Except where expressly prohibited, pedestrians may legally 

walk on roadway shoulders. Most highway shoulders are 

not intended for use by pedestrians but can accommodate 

occasional pedestrian use. If a shoulder is intended for use 

as a pedestrian access route “it must meet ADA requirements 

for pedestrian walkways to the maximum extent possible” 

(AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 55). For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Accessibility.

≥5 FT. (PREF) 

4 FT. (MIN) 12 FT. (MIN) 

3

TRAVEL

PATH OF B CI

YCL

SI T

PAVED SHOULDERS 43

RUMBLE STRIPS 

Rumble strips are a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Designers 

have flexibility on the placement and configuration of roadway 

rumble strips. Therefore, it is important that rumble strips 

are designed with bicyclist safety in mind. The AASHTO Bike 

Guide recommends providing a 4-foot clear space 3 from the 

rumble strip to the outside edge of a paved shoulder, or 5 feet 

to an adjacent curb, guardrail, or other obstacle (2012, p. 4-7). 

A reduced rumble strip length (measured perpendicular to the 

roadway) or edge line rumble strips, sometimes referred to as 

a rumble stripes 4 , can be considered to provide additional 

shoulder width for bicyclists. The AASHTO Bike Guide

recommends providing 12-foot minimum gaps 5 in rumble 

strips spaced every 40–60 feet to allow bicyclists to enter or 

exit the shoulder as needed (2012, p. 4-9). Designers should 

consider longer gaps in locations where bicyclists are traveling 

at relatively high speeds. Designers may also consider 

bicycle-tolerable rumble strips. Even though the strips can be 

made more tolerable, they are not considered to be rideable 

5

2 FT.

SHOULDER

UNDESIRABLE (FOR BICYCLISTS) CROSS SECTION

≥4 FT.

SHOULDER

4

ADEQUATE CROSS SECTION

6

<4 FT.

SHOULDER

CONSTRAINED CROSS SECTION

DESIRABLE (FOR BICYCLISTS) CROSS SECTION
44 PAVED SHOULDERS

CASE STUDIES

State departments of transportation pave shoulders based 

on well-documented benefits they produce for all modes, 

including the accommodation of bicyclists. For example, 

the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) typically 

adds wider paved shoulders (6 feet or greater) to State 

highways that are part of major reconstruction projects, 

which is consistent with their bicycle policy. Additionally, on 

pavement preservation projects, ADOT maintains existing 

paved shoulders and, in some cases, widens paved shoulders. 

Sometimes this requires a change in scope for the project and 

an additional source of funding. ADOT has also revised its 

Traffic Engineering Guidelines and Processes on Continuous 

Longitudinal Rumble Strips to include a clear shoulder width 

of 4 feet in order to make shoulders usable for bicyclists.

PAVED SHOULDERS AS BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS

ARIZONA

In 2015, the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) 

released an “Engineering Instruction” memorandum, specifying 

the Agency’s standard practice of using 11-foot lanes. The 

memo states that 11 feet is the recommended maximum lane 

width because roadways with wider travel lanes often result 

in a “shoulder width that is less than ideal for bicycle traffic.” 

This memorandum represents a major policy shift for a State 

department of transportation away from wider lanes by default 

and towards narrower lanes with shoulders that accommodate 

bicycling. 

11-FOOT LANE WIDTH STANDARD

VERMONT

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) 

policy for the application of rumble strips on shoulders 

seeks to strategically reduce run-off-the-road crashes 

while minimizing impacts to bicyclists. The policy allows 

rumble strips only if 4 feet of usable shoulder remains after 

application (5 feet if a guardrail or barrier is present). It also 

prohibits rumble strips on downhill grades exceeding 4 percent 

for more than 500 feet along common bike routes. WSDOT’s 

policy allows rumble strips to be placed only along roadways 

that have above-average levels of run-off-the-road crashes, 

which can be mitigated by shoulder rumble strips. 

RUMBLE STRIP POLICY

WASHINGTON

HSDEI 15 - 103

Page 1 of 2

 VTrans 

 

Highway Safety & Design Engineering Instructions (HSDEI)

Distribution: Highway Division, Director of Policy, Planning and Intermodal Development, 

Chief of Contract Administration, American Council of Engineering Companies 

of Vermont

Approved: ____________________________ Date: 7/6/2015

Michael J. Fowler, P.E.,

Acting Highway Safety & Design Program Manager

Subject: 11 Foot Lane Width

Administrative Information:

Effective Date: HSDEI 15 – 103 shall be effective from the date of approval.

Superseded HSDEI: Not applicable.

Exceptions: Not applicable.

Disposition of HSDEI Content: The content of HSDEI 15–103 will be incorporated into a 

future revision of the Vermont State Standards.

Purpose:

Currently the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) utilizes the “Vermont State 

Standards” to determine appropriate lane and shoulder widths for construction projects. 

Roadway characteristics such as functional classification, design speed, and traffic volume are 

considered when determining the lane and shoulder widths, resulting in a range of acceptable 

widths.

The “Vermont State Standards” provides a range of lane and shoulder widths for urban roadways 

and minimum lane and shoulder widths for rural roadways (for each roadway classification). 

While these ranges and minimums provide for adequate safety and service for their respective

roadway classification they also allow for designers to use the high end of the range or go above 

Source: John Russell (Creative Commons)

Source: Kevin Davidson, Hualapai Indian Tribe

Source: Vermont Agency of Transportation
45

A separated bike lane—also referred to as a cycle track or 

protected bike lane—is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that 

is located within or directly adjacent to the roadway and is 

physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a curb, 

median, or other vertical element. On-street parking may 

supplement physical separation. Separated bike lanes are 

integral to the development of low-stress bicycle networks 

because they enhance safety for all road users, encourage more 

bicycling, and are preferred by bicyclists and motorists alike. 

Key design resources including the MUTCD 2009, AASHTO 

Green Book 2011, and AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 do not define 

separated bike lanes, which may discourage some designers 

from incorporating them into roadway designs. 

Separated bike lanes are primarily a geometric design solution 

and are not a traffic control device. Therefore, the MUTCD 

2009 does not restrict their use. However, note that individual 

elements of separated bike lanes must be used in a manner 

that is compliant with the MUTCD 2009. The AASHTO Green 

Book 2011 and AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 also do not explicitly 

exclude the design of separated bike lanes. In practice, much of 

the guidance on sidepaths in the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 is 

applicable to separated bike lanes. Separated bike lane design 

guidelines have recently been introduced at the Federal and State 

levels, including the FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, 

to communicate best practices, advance design guidance, and 

encourage flexible solutions to bicycle mobility.

The AASHTO Green Book 2011 and MUTCD 2009 do not 

provide specific design guidance on separated bike lanes. The 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide emphasizes the importance 

of applying design flexibility when designing separated bike 

lanes:

“The practice of designing separated bike lanes is still evolving and 

until various configurations have been implemented and thoroughly 

evaluated on a consistent basis, design flexibility will remain a 

priority.” 

 (2015, p. 27)

“By separating cyclists from motor traffic, cycle tracks can offer a 

higher level of security than bike lanes and are attractive to a wider 

spectrum of the public.”

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 2014, p. 27 

“In some situations, it may be better to place one-way sidepaths on 

both sides of the street or highway, directing wheeled users to travel in 

the same direction as adjacent motor vehicle traffic.“ 

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-11 

“Separated bike lanes can contribute to increased bicycling volumes 

and mode shares, in part by appealing to less confident riders and this 

could eventually result in a more diverse ridership across age, gender, 

and ability.“ 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, p. 16

SEPARATED BIKE LANES

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES

Source: New York City Department of Transportation
46 SEPARATED BIKE LANES

EXISTING SIDEPATH AND STANDARD BIKE LANE 

GUIDANCE

The AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 does not cover separated bike 

lanes, and in some cases discourages their use. However, it 

is currently under revision with the purpose of providing much 

needed guidance on the design of separated bike lanes, due 

in part to the fact that over 250 of these facilities have been 

installed by communities throughout the U.S. 

In the interim, FHWA published the Separated Bike Lane Guide 

2015, which outlines planning considerations and provides 

a menu of design options covering typical one- and two-way 

scenarios.

FORMS OF SEPARATION

Separated bike lanes provide a physical separation from motor 

vehicles by a curb, raised median, or a vertical element. The 

design of the separation should be based on the presence 

of on-street parking, overall street and buffer width, cost, 

durability, aesthetics, traffic speeds, emergency vehicle and 

service access, and maintenance. (FHWA Separated Bike Lane 

Guide 2015, p. 83)

Raised medians 1 are generally preferred because they 

provide permanent curb separation. However, they are costly 

and may impact drainage. Therefore, they are most commonly 

installed as part of a full roadway reconstruction project. 

Delineator posts 2 or other lower-cost vertical elements 

3 can be ideal for retrofit projects where existing curblines 

remain. Depending on the project, street buffer widths and 

vertical element spacing can vary (FHWA Separated Bike Lane 

Guide 2015, p. 83). Designers may increase the street buffer 

width to create protected bicycle crossings at intersections, 

which improves motorists’ visibility of people bicycling and 

creates space to yield without blocking traffic. The street 

buffer also helps manage pedestrian and bicycle conflicts. For 

more information, refer to the design topic on Separated Bike 

Lanes at Intersections. 

Designers should consider the crashworthiness of separation 

types. Fixed objects in the roadway are generally not 

recommended and some movable objects, such as planters, 

may not be appropriate on higher-speed streets. On lowerONE-WAY

7’ PREFERRED

5’ MINIMUM

TWO-WAY

12’ PREFERRED

10’ MINIMUM

2

BOLLARDS

3

5

4

PLANTERS

3 3

CONCRETE BARRIERS

1

RAISEDMEDIANS

3

PARKING STOPS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY
SEPARATED BIKE LANES 47

speed streets, separation types “need not be of size and 

strength to redirect errant motorists toward the roadway” 

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-11).

BIKE LANE WIDTH

Separated bike lane width depends on a combination of 

factors, including the existing street characteristics, existing 

and anticipated demand, and maintenance considerations. 

Separated bike lanes may be one-way, either in the direction 

of vehicle travel or contra-flow, or two-way. Preferred widths 

range from 7 feet 4 for one-way operation to 12 feet 5

for two-way operation, exclusive of the street buffer. Wider 

separated bike lanes accommodate greater volumes of 

bicyclists (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, p. 77 

and 80). Narrower widths are sometimes used in constrained 

locations. However, this may inhibit passing and side-byside riding, which are important to providing a comfortable 

bicycling environment that appeals to all ages and bicycling 

abilities. Narrow separated bike lane widths may also require 

special maintenance equipment for street sweeping or 

snowplowing (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, p. 77).

Designers should be mindful of bicyclist operating space and 

its relation to separated bike lane edge conditions (AASHTO 

Bike Guide 2012, p. 3-2). Because bicyclists naturally shy 

away from hazards, proximity to streetscape furniture, vertical 

elements in the street buffer, or vertical curbs may reduce the 

usable width of the separated bike lane.

BIKE LANE ELEVATION

Separated bike lanes may be designed at any elevation 

between the street level and sidewalk level (NACTO Urban 

Bikeway Design Guide 2014, p. 35). Many factors contribute 

to the selection of bike lane elevation, including drainage, 

accessibility, usable bike lane width, intersection frequency, 

curbside conflicts, maintenance, and separation from 

pedestrians and motor vehicles. However, the decision is 

often dictated by the construction technique (retrofit vs. 

reconstruction). 

Sidewalk-level separated bike lanes 6 typically require 

reconstruction with drainage modifications. To minimize 

pedestrian encroachment, sidewalk buffers 7 are preferred. 

Where buffers are not provided, the separated bike lane should 

be visually distinct and at a lower grade from the adjacent 

sidewalk. Sidewalk-level bike lanes simplify raised driveway 

and street crossings, which improves bicyclist safety.

Street-level separated bike lanes 8 may be implemented as 

retrofit or reconstruction projects, often allowing the reuse 

of the existing drainage system. They maximize pedestrian 

separation, therefore a sidewalk buffer is not required. Raised 

street and driveway crossings typically require drainage 

modifications.

Intermediate-level separated bike lanes 9 are located 

below the sidewalk and above the street and are typically 

implemented as a reconstruction project. To minimize 

potential encroachment or conflicts with pedestrians, a 

minimum 2-inch vertical separation is preferred. Drainage may 

be captured within the separated bike lane or flow towards a 

roadway edge collection system.

Separated bike lane elevation may transition throughout a 

corridor in response to changing conditions (e.g., raising to 

sidewalk level at driveways, lowering to street level at major 

intersections). However, designers should avoid frequent 

transitions to preserve a comfortable bicycling environment.

SIDEWALK LEVEL

STREET LEVEL

INTERMEDIATE

LEVEL

SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 

BUFFER

STREET

BUFFER STREET SEPARATED 

BIKE LANE

8

9

6

7
48 SEPARATED BIKE LANES

CASE STUDIES

In 2014, the City of San Francisco installed a contra-flow 

separated bike lane on a two-block, one-way stretch of Polk 

Street, permitting bicyclists to safely travel northbound against 

the flow of southbound vehicular traffic. This separated 

bike lane creates a low-stress connection between Market 

Street and Polk Street, two of the busiest and most important 

bicycling corridors in San Francisco. The City removed a lane 

of parking to accommodate the bike lane and added a raised 

vegetated median. A designated vehicle loading area was 

retained for adjacent buildings. Bicyclists are directed by 

traffic signals at three intersections. Left-turn queue boxes 

on Market Street help transition bicyclists into and out of the 

separated bike lane. 

POLK STREET SEPARATED BIKE LANE

SAN FRANCISCO, CA

In 2015, the City of Cambridge completed a full reconstruction 

of 0.5 miles of Western Avenue, which replaced a standard bike 

lane with a one-way, sidewalk-level separated bike lane in the 

same direction of motor vehicle travel. The separated bike lane 

is visually delineated from the concrete sidewalk through the 

use of asphalt (which is porous to reduce stormwater runoff) 

and physically separated with trees and street furniture. The 

design incorporates raised bicycle and pedestrian crossings 

at minor street crossings; signalized crossings transition to 

street level and feature bicycle signals with leading intervals. 

Conflicts between buses and bicyclists are minimized through 

the use of floating bus stops. Cambridge performed extensive 

public outreach for this transformation, including 14 Advisory 

Committee and public meetings and five neighborhood walks 

over a 1.5-year period. 

WESTERN AVENUE SEPARATED BIKE LANE

CAMBRIDGE, MA

In 2011, the City of Portland implemented a 0.5 mile twoway separated bike lane as part the SW Moody Avenue 

reconstruction project. This separated bike lane—the first 

in downtown Portland—is raised to sidewalk level to further 

separate bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic. Both the 

sidewalk and separated bike lane are constructed of concrete, 

but delineated by trees and unit pavers to provide visual 

contrast and discourage encroachment. The opening of the 

Tilikum Crossing Bridge in 2015 brought more changes to SW 

Moody Avenue: the sidewalk and separated bike lane were 

flipped to reduce conflicts between these users, and additional 

green paint further clarified the bicycle path of travel.

SOUTHWEST MOODY AVENUE SEPARATED BIKE LANE

PORTLAND, OR

Source: PeopleForBikes

Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
49

Bus stops are critical connection points between modes 

of transportation. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and transferring 

passengers need to access bus stops. Bus stops are often 

located in areas with high pedestrian volumes, such as near 

transportation centers and business districts, but they also serve 

suburban and rural areas where buses may be the only form of 

transit. Bus stops should be comfortable, safe, convenient, and 

designed for the local context. They should complement the 

larger transportation network.

Accessibility is an essential part in determining bus stop 

location and layout. In many areas outside urban, low-speed 

environments, designers need to consider roadway clear-zone 

requirements and roadside drainage features, which may present 

challenges to bus stop access. As a method to improve safety, 

designers sometimes develop “forgiving” roadway designs that 

include relatively large clear zones. However, this approach may 

preclude the inclusion of desirable bus stop elements such as 

bus shelters. The 2011 AASHTO Green Book identifies flexibility 

in the clear-zone requirements, where engineering judgment and 

local context should be used to select an appropriate clear-zone 

distance for the specific road and bus stop location.

The 2011 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide provides the basis 

for design when selecting a clear zone for a roadway. There 

is flexibility in the clear-zone requirements outlined in the 

Roadside Design Guide:

“While clear zone dimensions are provided in this guide, they should 

not be viewed as either absolute or precise. It is expected that the 

establishment of roadside design criteria and the design of the 

roadside is a site- or project-specific task for the designer. Also, the 

Roadside Design Guide suggests that more than one solution may be 

evident or appropriate for a given set of conditions.” 

AASHTO Flexibility Guide 2004, p. 69

“Pedestrian access from the catchment areas surrounding bus stops 

should be convenient, direct, and safe. Connecting streets should be 

used where available. In other cases, pedestrian connection between 

bus stops and surrounding neighborhoods should be provided.”

AASHTO Transit Guide 2014, p. 5-11

“For clear zones, the criteria in the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 

should be treated as guidance and not as a national standard requiring 

a design exception if not numerically met.”

FHWA Flexibility in Highway Design 1997, p. 38 

“Social safety and traffic safety at transit stops are critical for riders 

and impact their decisions about where and when to take transit. 

Prioritizing walking access to transit stops, including direct routes and 

convenient, low-delay pedestrian crossings, is vital to achieving a safe 

system.”

NACTO Transit Street Design Guide 2016, p. 58 

“The suggested clear-zone distances in Table 3-1 are based on limited 

empirical data that then were extrapolated to provide data for a wide 

range of conditions...Appropriate application of the clear-zone concept 

often will result in more than one possible solution.” 

AASHTO Roadside Design Guide 2011, p. 3-10

BUS STOPS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES
50 BUS STOPS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

NETWORK

An accessible route, whether a sidewalk 1 , path, or shoulder, 

must connect to the stop. This may require adding new 

sidewalks or locating the bus stop where an accessible route 

already exists. Bus stops should be located where there is 

existing or future demand, “such as office buildings, schools, 

medical centers, and apartment complexes. They should also 

be placed at locations where they connect with other transit 

lines and major cross-streets” (AASHTO Transit Guide 2014, 

p. 5-1). Both at intersections and midblock, designers should 

consider if a marked crosswalk and/or additional crossing 

treatments are necessary. For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Enhanced Crossing Treatments. 

CLEAR ZONES

There is a great deal of flexibility afforded to the designer in 

the selection and application of clear zones. The AASHTO 

Roadside Design Guide provides a range of recommendations 

for clear zones based on the design speed, average daily traffic 

of the roadway, and the slope of the area beyond the traveled 

way (2011, p. 3-2). 

While the recommendations in the 2011 AASHTO Roadside 

Design Guide are the beginning point, engineering judgment 

and local context should be applied when determining the 

clear-zone distance. AASHTO Flexibility in Highway Design

states that determining the clear zone is a project-specific 

task, and that the width may be limited by right-of-way 

constraints or the need to provide pedestrian facilities (2004, 

p. 68). The location of, and access to and from, a bus stop may 

be considered as an appropriate reason to reduce the clearzone width if needed. 2 Additionally, in low-speed urban 

environments, the AASHTO Roadside Design Guide recognizes 

that there are practical limitations to clear zones and 

recommends minimum lateral offsets instead (2011, p. 10-1).

The designer should consider the crash history of a particular 

road when setting a clear-zone width or locating a bus stop. 

Other on-roadway treatments including pavement markings, 

rumble strips, signs, and delineators should be considered 

when reduced clear-zone width is necessary.

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO A BUS STOP ON A 

SHOULDER

In some cases, such as rural settings, a roadway shoulder 

may provide the only access to a bus stop. “Where a shoulder 

serves as part of a pedestrian access route, it must meet ADA 

requirements for pedestrian walkways to the maximum extent 

possible” (AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 55).

BUS STOP PLACEMENT

Bus stops should be placed as close to the travel way as 

reasonable, once clear zones are considered. Placing the stop 

closer to the road increases visibility of the stop users and may 

result in a more direct access route. Additionally, in a retrofit 

installation, placing the bus stop and shelter close to the travel 

way reduces impacts to right-of-way.

At intersections, bus stops can be placed far-side (immediately 

after an intersection) or near-side (immediately before an 

intersection). Generally, transit agencies prefer far-side stops 

when traffic flows are heavy, where there are sight distance 

problems, and where buses turn left. Near-side located bus 

stops may be appropriate where traffic flow is lower or where 

transit riders can more easily transfer without crossing 

the street. Stops can also be placed midblock where there 

are major passenger generators or where space next to an 

intersection is insufficient. For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Transit Conflicts.

BUS STOP DESIGN

Bus stop design must be accessible to all transit users, 

including people with disabilities. Boarding areas must be 

connected to streets, sidewalks, or pedestrian circulation 

paths by pedestrian access routes (PROWAG 2011, R308; 

and ADAAG 810.2.3). An 8-foot minimum by 5-foot minimum 

boarding and alighting area 3 free of obstructions is required 

for accessibility. 

Bus stops should be at least 10 feet wide (measured 

perpendicular from the street) where possible, and long 

enough to accommodate the bus stop elements (i.e., boarding 

and alighting area, shelter, etc.) and to coordinate with the 

front and rear doors of the buses serving the stop to ensure 

accessibility. 4 Where bus stops are adjacent to sidewalks, 

the sidewalk width may be included in the bus stop width, as 

long as the cross slope meets accessibility requirements. The 

AASHTO Transit Guide provides additional guidance on bus 

stop design (2014, p. 5-28).

On lower-speed roadways, vertical curbs should be provided 

at bus stops, which increases the efficiency and accessibility 

of boarding and alighting. Curb heights between 6–9 inches 

accommodate both low floor buses, people with mobility 

BUS STOP ON ROAD WITH SHOULDER

1

2

CLEAR ZONE
BUS STOPS 51

disabilities, or passengers with strollers (AASHTO Transit 

Guide 2014, p. 5-29).

In a rural setting with higher-speed roadways, vertical curbs 

should not be used at bus stops. Sloping type curbs with a 

height not exceeding 4 inches are appropriate (AASHTO Green 

Book 2011, p. 4-19).

The lighting, visibility, and accessibility should be continuous 

and consistent between the bus stop and any connecting 

access routes. All bus stops must be accessible with 

hard-surfaced sidewalks or pathways that are cleared and 

maintained in all seasons (AASHTO Transit Guide 2014, p. 

5-29). 

Note that there can often be conflicts between bicycles, buses, 

and boarding passengers. For more information, see the 

design topic on Transit Conflicts.

BUS STOP ELEMENTS

Bus stops with elements, such as shelters, benches, and 

in-shelter lighting increase the comfort, convenience, and 

visibility of patrons and the stop itself. This investment in 

infrastructure can raise the overall attractiveness of bus 

service and help meet a transit agency’s targets for ridership 

growth.

Several factors should be considered when establishing 

warrants and priorities for shelters 5 , including the “number 

of passengers using the stop, average passenger waiting 

time, degree of exposure to weather, availability of alternative 

shelter nearby, adequacy of sidewalk width to accommodate 

shelter, proximity of suitable street lighting, and absence of 

obstructions that limit visibility of shelter (AASHTO Transit 

Guide 2014, p. 5-30). The Easter Seals Project Action (ESPA) 

Toolkit for the Assessment of Bus Stop Accessibility and 

Safety recommend shelters be provided when 25 or more 

persons use a bus stop in a suburban setting per day, and 10 or 

more persons in a rural setting.

Outfitting bus shelters with advertising 6 can help offset 

the cost of bus shelter installation and maintenance, but may 

reduce visibility and intersection sight lines. 

Additional bus stop amenities include benches, lighting, 

newspaper vending machines 7 , route/schedule information 

8 , trash receptacles 9 , and bicycle parking. Benches 10

and clear spaces for wheelchairs provide comfort, help identify 

the stop, and are often included within the shelter. In-shelter 

lighting increases visibility and enhances comfort and sense 

of security. Bicycle parking should be considered in locations 

where it is anticipated that transit users would ride to the stop, 

for example at stops serving longer-distance express buses. 

BUS STOP ON ROAD WITHOUT SHOULDER

6

9

5

8

7

2

3

4

10

CLEAR ZONE
52 BUS STOPS

CASE STUDIES

King County Metro Transit installed solar-powered beacon pole 

lights at existing and new bus stops to reduce the number of 

people passed by and not picked up due to low light levels and 

poor visibility. Metro focused on installing these systems at 

locations that were especially dark, or where roadway speeds 

were 35 mi/h or higher. The beacon pole light system allows 

passengers to activate a light which alerts bus drivers that 

someone is waiting at the stop. This system includes braille 

identification plates for people with visual disabilities, and 

can also include other features such as a locator tone to alert 

users of the location of the beacon. There has been positive 

feedback from Metro bus drivers because the lights allow them 

to make planned, smooth transitions to the stop. This has 

reduced last-minute braking, which often occurs when visibility 

is poor. 

STOP REQUEST LIGHTS

SEATTLE, WA

Starting in 2006, the Montgomery County Department of 

Transportation began an effort to upgrade all of its 5,400 

bus stops to improve pedestrian access and to be fully ADA 

compliant. The effort began with a detailed inventory: each 

bus stop location was geocoded and 150 attributes were 

collected. The County identified 3,400 bus stops that needed 

improvements for a total cost of $11 million. Improvements 

included relocating bus stops, installing curb ramps, adding 

or extending sidewalks, and installing crosswalks and island 

cut-throughs. At locations with relatively steep slopes, the 

county installed knee walls (shown to the right) to prevent 

wheelchairs from rolling and to provide seating space. Field 

design was key to the success and quick implementation of 

these improvements. County planners, traffic engineers, and 

construction contractors met in the field with Maryland State 

Highway Administration engineers to mark locations of new 

sidewalk, signs, and pavement markings. To date, most of the 

bus stops have been improved. Between FY2007 and FY2015, 

the County spent approximately $8.2 million to construct over 

3,000 concrete boarding and alighting areas, over 85,000 ft2

 of 

sidewalk, and over 1,200 curb ramps. 

BUS STOP IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 

MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD
53

BRIDGE DESIGN

Bridge crossings are significant investments and therefore often 

occur infrequently. Thus, it is critical that they accommodate 

pedestrians and bicyclists. A bridge without walking and 

bicycling access can result in a lengthy detour that makes the 

entire trip impractical. 

Federal law states: “In any case where a highway bridge 

deck being replaced or rehabilitated with Federal financial 

participation is located on a highway on which bicycles are 

permitted to operate at each end of such bridge, and the 

Secretary determines that the safe accommodation of bicycles 

can be provided at reasonable cost as part of such replacement 

or rehabilitation, then such bridge shall be so replaced or 

rehabilitated as to provide such safe accommodations” (23 USC 

§217(e)). 

Safe pedestrian access can often be included at the same time 

as bicycle accommodations and should be provided on bridges 

whenever possible, regardless of funding source. Bridges should 

also accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians traveling under 

them so they do not create a barrier. Providing pedestrian and 

bicycle accommodation during initial construction generally 

costs less than retrofitting.

While Federal policy, in many cases, requires safe 

accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists, design guidance 

provides adequate flexibility on how to accommodate these 

users.

U.S. DOT recommends transportation agencies and local 

communities to go beyond minimum design standards and 

requirements to create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, 

and convenient walking and bicycling networks. Such actions 

include:

“Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on new, 

rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges: DOT encourages bicycle and 

pedestrian accommodation on bridge projects including facilities on 

limited-access bridges with connections to streets or paths.” 

 U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation 

Regulations and Recommendations 2010

“Bridges, viaducts, and tunnels should accommodate bicycles... there 

are numerous examples of limited access highway bridges that cross 

major barriers (such as wide waterways) that incorporate a shared 

use path for bicyclists and pedestrians. The absence of a bicycle 

accommodation on the approach roadway should not prevent the 

accommodation of bicyclists on the bridge or tunnel.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-41

“Provisions should always be made to include some type of walking 

facility as a part of vehicular bridges, underpasses, and tunnels, if the 

facility is intended to be part of a pedestrian access route.”

AASHTO Ped Guide 2004, p. 63 

“It is more effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an older 

facility. Planning projects for the long-term should anticipate likely 

future demand for bicycling and walking facilities and not preclude the 

provision of future improvements.” 

U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation 

Regulations and Recommendations 2010

KEY POLICY OTHER RESOURCES
54 BRIDGE DESIGN

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE ACCOMMODATION

Both sides of bridges should accommodate travel for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 1 Where bidirectional travelways 

can be provided, they may reduce conflicts if they limit the 

number of roadway crossings. Similarly, facilities for current 

and anticipated people who will walk and bicycle to the bridge 

as well as travel under the bridge should be considered. 2

Designers should consider whether to combine pedestrians 

and bicyclists on a shared use path or to separate them. Refer 

to the design topic on Shared Use Paths for more information. 

CONNECTION TO CROSSING FACILITIES

Connections from bicycle and pedestrian facilities on a 

bridge to related features below, such as shared use paths, 

sidewalks, or other infrastructure, are a key component of 

connected networks. Any connection for use by pedestrians 

must be accessible to people with disabilities. 3 The 

design should consider the desired route of pedestrians and 

bicyclists. Common practice is to install switchbacks which 

may be the only option in a confined space. However, designs 

without switchbacks often create a more direct route for the 

majority of users. Grades must meet accessibility standards 

and ramps may be required. Where bicyclists are permitted 

to use the connection, the ideal design should not require 

bicyclists to dismount (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-14). 

Where switchbacks are required, the ramp turns should provide 

generous width to better accommodate turns by bicyclists. 4 

1

3

4

5

 7

 7

8

2

STAIRS WITH BIKE CHANNELS

Stairs may be built to provide a more direct connection for 

pedestrians and bicyclists, but the accessible route may not be 

significantly longer. 5 Stairs can accommodate bicycles by 

including a bike channel—a flat ramp parallel to the stairs on 

which to roll a bicycle. 6 Handrail designs must meet current 

accessibility standards. Specifically, the handrail on stairs 

with a bike channel needs to project out from the wall with at 

least the minimum clearance required by the ADA Accessibility 

Guidelines, and the handrail must be aligned above the stair 

nosing where people are walking. Pedestrians must be able to 

easily reach the railing and the bike channel must not present a 

tripping hazard for people with visual disabilities.

WAYFINDING TO BRIDGE ENTRANCES

Pedestrians and bicyclists may find it difficult to locate bridge 

access points from the connecting street grid. In some cases, 

access points for people on foot, in wheelchairs, or on bicycles 

are different and more difficult to locate than vehicle access 

points. Wayfinding signs and markings should direct people to 

bridge access points. 7

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

1
BRIDGE DESIGN 55

CLEAR WIDTH/USABLE WIDTH

Bridge designs should provide adequate width for current 

and anticipated pedestrian and bicycle use. Sufficient clear 

width and usable width should be provided. Clear width 9

is a travelway clear of obstructions such as railings, light 

poles, signs, etc. (HCM 2010, p. 17.48). The usable width 10

recognizes that pedestrians and bicyclists will not travel at 

the very edge of a travelway or immediately against a railing, 

but need at least 1.5 feet of shy distance from vertical objects 

(HCM 2010, p. 17.48). For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Shared Use Paths.

CONSIDERATIONS

• The desirable clear width for a sidewalk on a bridge is 8 

feet (AASHTO Pedestrian Guide 2004, p. 63).

• The minimum width for one-way bicycle travel is 4 feet. 

(See the AASHTO Bike Guide 2012 for considerations 

regarding bike lane and shared use path widths.)

BRIDGE RAILINGS

Well-designed bridge railings can contribute to a positive 

experience on bridges for people who walk or bicycle and can 

increase safety. Railing designs should consider a 1.5 foot shy 

distance when determining usable width, and a height that 

keeps pedestrians and bicyclists safe. As bicyclists have a 

higher center of gravity, railings should be a minimum of 42 

inches high. Where a bicyclist’s handlebar or pedal may come 

into contact with the railing, a smooth wide rub-rail should be 

installed (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-27). On bridges that 

accommodate both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle travel, 

only a crash-tested railing should be installed.

 6

10

9

DESIGNING FOR FUTURE TRAILS

While including facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists on 

bridges increases access, the bridge design itself may reduce 

future connectivity. Waterways, railroads, and highways may be 

desirable corridors for shared use paths. Whether or not there 

is a current plan to build a path along one of these corridors, 

bridge design should consider future accommodations for 

pedestrians and bicyclists under the bridge. 8
56 BRIDGE DESIGN

In 2015, TriMet completed the Tilikum Crossing Bridge as 

part of a new light rail alignment in Portland, OR. The Tilikum 

Crossing is the first major bridge in the U.S. designed for 

transit vehicles (light rail and buses), pedestrians, and 

bicyclists but not cars, trucks, or motorcycles. The bridge 

has two 14-foot pedestrian and bicycle pathways on each 

side: each with more than 7 feet dedicated to one-way bicycle 

travel and 6 feet for two-way pedestrian travel. By completing 

key bicycle and pedestrian connections and expanding the 

City’s bicycle and pedestrian network, the bridge’s facilities 

helped build good will and excitement for the project in the 

community.

BRIDGE ACCOMMODATION AND WIDTHS

PORTLAND, OR

In 2008, the City of Minneapolis, MN completed the 

reconstruction of the Interstate-35W Bridge crossing the 

Mississippi River in Minneapolis with careful consideration 

for future transportation corridors. A large culvert box was 

constructed under the south end of the bridge to provide 

a future tunnel connection for pedestrians and bicyclists 

crossing underneath the interstate. The trail did not exist at 

the completion of the new bridge and tunnel, as funding for the 

trail remained unidentified.

The culvert tunnel remained closed for six years, and opened 

in 2014 as part of the Bluff Street bicycle and pedestrian trail, 

which provides an important connection between downtown 

Minneapolis and the University of Minnesota.

BUILDING TUNNELS FOR FUTURE TRAILS

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

BRIDGE APPROACH RAMPS

WEST PALM BEACH, FL

In 2003, the City of West Palm Beach, FL reconstructed the 

Royal Park Bridge connecting West Palm Beach with Palm 

Beach, FL. The design included a pedestrian and bicycle 

“interchange” on the West Palm Beach side. The interchange 

features a new pathway under the bridge that connects to 

the bridge via a ramp and staircase, which allows bicyclists 

and pedestrians to comfortably travel from the trail to the 

bridge without conflicts with motorists. The ramp and stair 

connection is accessible, well lit, and landscaped. The new 

trail under the bridge includes a 10-foot wide section for 

bicyclists and a 10-foot wide section for pedestrians with a 

4-foot wide textured separator. 

Source: John Weeks (large photo)

CASE STUDIES
57

Slow streets are designed to enhance safety and improve 

pedestrian and bicycle comfort by achieving low motorist 

speeds. Slow streets are frequently designed to minimize speed 

differentials between motorists and bicyclists to prioritize 

bicycle travel. The lower motorist speeds also promote increased 

yielding to pedestrians crossing the street. These streets are 

also known as bicycle boulevards, quietways, or neighborhood 

greenways. 

Designers have conventionally designed low-speed, urban 

streets for speeds between 20–45 mi/h. Slow streets should 

be designed for a maximum speed of 20 to 25 mi/h with the 

majority of motorists going slower. Slow streets may require the 

use of traffic calming measures such as curb extensions, speed 

tables, gateway treatments, neighborhood traffic circles, textured 

pavement, and chicanes. For more information, refer to design 

topic on Traffic Calming and Design Speed.

The 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide addresses the 

design of bicycle boulevards, a type of slow street:

“Streets developed as bicycle boulevards should have 85th percentile 

speeds at 25 mph or less (20 mph preferred).” 

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide, p. 167

SLOW STREETS

KEY DESIGN FLEXIBILITY OTHER RESOURCES

“Pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the 

downtown or other retail areas. In general, the most successful 

shopping sections are those that provide the most comfort and 

pleasure for pedestrians.” 

AASHTO Green Book 2011, p. 2-78 

“Bicycle boulevards create favorable conditions for bicycling by 

taking advantage of local streets and their inherently bicycle-friendly 

characteristics: low traffic volumes and operating speeds.”

AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-33

“Speed Management measures for bicycle boulevards bring motor 

vehicle speeds closer to those of bicyclists...[and] is critical to creating 

a comfortable and effective bicycle boulevard.”

NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide 2014, p. 167

“Bicycles are an important form of non-motorized travel for social, 

recreational, and work trips. Local streets often are ideal for bicyclists 

because of their relatively low traffic levels, relatively low traffic 

speeds and direct access to a large number of destinations.”

ITE Urban Street Geometric Design Handbook 2008, p. 250.
58 SLOW STREETS

APPLYING DESIGN FLEXIBILITY

Design speeds for slow streets are typically at or below 

20 mi/h. This design speed reduces the speed differential 

between roadway users, thus providing a higher level of 

comfort and safety. Good candidates for slow streets include 

neighborhood residential streets, school walking routes, 

bicycle routes, and shopping streets with a high level of 

pedestrian activity. Slow streets are also appropriate on 

streets running adjacent to, or through, parks and public 

plazas. 1 Lower-speed streets with comfortable pedestrian 

crossings enhance adjacent public space, while streets 

designed for higher vehicle speeds and volumes, with difficult 

crossings, detract from it.

There are various types of slow streets, including (but not 

limited to):

• Bicycle boulevards

• Bicycle priority streets

• Neighborhood greenways

• Neighborhood slow streets

• Shared streets (also called “flush” streets) are a special 

type of slow street that are covered separately in the design 

topic on Shared Streets.

STRATEGIES FOR ACHIEVING SLOW SPEEDS

The choice of surface materials can impact traffic safety and 

speeds, user comfort, and stormwater management. Bricks or 

pavers provide texture and can produce a traffic calming effect 

when used in the street, but may be difficult for some people to 

traverse in the pedestrian areas. 2

Slow streets often have a narrowed travel way (less than 18 

feet in total width), in some cases requiring oncoming motor 

vehicle traffic to yield prior to passing. 3 Alleys are an 

example of this strategy for slow street design.

In some cases, slow streets will include bollards, planters, 

and other vertical elements in close proximity to the travel 

way, therefore encouraging caution as drivers move along the 

street.

The removal of traffic controls at intersections, in conjunction 

with other features that reduce speed, is another strategy to 

produce cautious behavior for motorists (and therefore slower 

speeds). 

Various other traffic calming measures can be used to 

slow motor vehicle speeds, provide comfortable places for 

vulnerable road users, and encourage motorist yielding. For 

more information, refer to the design topic on Traffic Calming 

and Design Speed. 

1

2

3

SLOW STREET ADJACENT TO PARK
SLOW STREETS 59

Slow street strategies may be implemented in the short or long 

term. Effective traffic calming measures may be implemented 

as short-term retrofit project using paint and temporary 

materials only (e.g., epoxy, flexible delineator posts, planters, 

etc.). The use of these materials enables practitioners to 

tweak designs, if necessary, in response to community input 

and direct observations. It may be appropriate to pursue a 

retrofit project in the short term while planning and designing 

for long-term reconstruction. Some measures may require 

reconstruction of the street to realize full desired outcomes. 

GATEWAY TREATMENTS

For a slow street to be successful, drivers must feel that they 

are entering a new and different environment. This is typically 

accomplished by locating gateway treatments at the transition 

point to a slow street (NACTO Street Urban Design Guide 

2013, p. 47). Gateway treatments are strategically located curb 

extensions that can feature additional elements, such as raised 

crossings, landscaping, signs, stormwater management, etc. 

Cambridge, MA, Boulder, CO, Portland, OR, Seattle, WA, and 

New York City are examples of municipalities that implement 

gateway treatments. 

4

4

BICYCLE BOULEVARDS (OR BICYCLE PRIORITY 

STREETS)

Bicycle boulevards are streets with lower motor vehicle speeds 

that are designed to allow bicyclists to travel comfortably in 

a low-stress environment. Bicycle boulevards typically give 

priority to bicycle use and discourage through-traffic by motor 

vehicles. They are designed to minimize the number of stops 

that a bicyclist must make along the route. 

There is a great deal of flexibility when designing bicycle 

boulevards. Different types of design treatments can be 

used. They are easier to implement in areas with a grid street 

network because drivers have the option to choose an alternate 

route. Bicycle boulevards are typically designated with special 

signs or pavement markings. 4 More information on bicycle 

boulevard design can be found in the 2012 AASHTO Bike 

Guide and the 2014 NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 

ACCESSIBILITY 

Slow streets are inherently beneficial to pedestrians of all 

abilities, because they produce slower and more cautious 

behavior on the part of motorists. Design elements of 

slow streets must meet current accessibility standards. 

For example, all surfaces within pedestrian areas must be 

designed and maintained to be stable, firm, and slip resistant. 

For more information, refer to the the design topics on

Accessibility and Shared Streets.

BICYCLE BOULEVARD
60 SLOW STREETS

CASE STUDIES

In 2011, the City of Minneapolis installed the 5th Street NE 

Bicycle Boulevard to provide a low-stress bicycling route. 

5th Street NE is a quiet, residential street with a 20–25 mi/h 

design speed. Yield-controlled, landscaped traffic circles 

replaced stop signs at two locations. The City rebuilt two 

traffic diverters to allow bicycle-only traffic and installed the 

city’s first bicycle signal to facilitate the crossing of Broadway 

Street, which carries 20,000 vehicles/day. Today the boulevard 

connects University of Minnesota students with residential 

neighborhoods and serves about 700 bicyclists on a typical 

day.

5TH STREET NE BICYCLE BOULEVARD

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 

Portland’s Neighborhood Greenways program (formerly Bicycle 

Boulevards) increases the safety, comfort, and convenience 

of the walking and bicycling environment on residential 

streets. Neighborhood Greenways provide comfortable bicycle 

and pedestrian crossing opportunities and are designed to 

limit motor vehicle operating speeds to no more than 20 

mi/h and volumes to approximately 1,500 vehicles per day. 

These outcomes are achieved through the use of speed 

humps and traffic diverters to discourage cut-through motor 

vehicle traffic. As a result, Neighborhood Greenways form the 

backbone of the City’s low-stress bicycling network. The City 

has installed more than 70 miles of Neighborhood Greenways 

as of 2016 and continues to expand the program. 

NEIGHBORHOOD GREENWAY PROGRAM

PORTLAND, OR

The City of Sulphur Springs reconstructed Heritage Square to 

revitalize its downtown and create a welcoming public space 

next to the historic Hopkins County Courthouse. Four twolane, one-way streets surrounding the square were narrowed, 

converted to two-way operation, and reconstructed with a brick 

surface. The result was a slow-speed street that doubles as 

festival space during downtown community events, which are 

now common. The City replaced a parking lot in the center of 

the square with landscaping, trees, memorials, places to sit, a 

splash fountain, two public restrooms, and on-street parking.

HERITAGE SQUARE

SULPHUR SPRINGS, TX

GOING ALBERTA

MICHIGAN

ALBERTA CT.

BRYANT

WILLIAMS

WABASH

 CENTRAL

41st

HARRISON

MILL

CLINTON WOODWARD

GLADSTONE CENTER

TAYLOR

ANKENY DAVIS

TILLAMOOK

37th 38th

CONCORD

DANA

HOUGHTON

HOLMAN

BUSH

101st

100th

53rd

UMATILLA

24thRALEIGH

FLANDERS

JOHNSON

OVERTON

ILLINOIS

MILES CT.

52nd

87th 86th

KLICKITAT

HANCOCK

43nd

COUCH

FENWICK

BRYANT

SPOKANE

19th

INSLEY

60th

CHESTNUT

WESTWOOD

LINCOLN

GRAND

TILLAMOOK

MARSHALL

TERRY

HALLECK

EMERALD

SISKIYOU

EVERETT

I

EXISTING

FUNDED

Portland

Neighborhood

Greenways

32nd CRYSTAL

SPRINGS

28th 29th 30th

32nd 26th 27th

128th

130th

132nd

128th

BUSH

SACRAMENTO

77th

RODNEY

106th 108th 

157th

SALMON

16th

Source: Portland Bureau of Transportation
PART 2: 

REDUCING CONFLICTS
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

62 REDUCING CONFLICTS
63

The provision of connected and consistent facilities for 

pedestrians and bicyclists can reduce conflicts among modes 

and encourage higher levels of walking and bicycling. Walking 

and biking routes should form a comfortable network for all ages 

and abilities.

The network must enable a comfortable trip from beginning 

to end to maximize use. To accomplish this, disconnected 

street networks, highway or railroad barriers, high-crash or 

uncomfortable intersections, and difficult midblock crossings 

must be addressed. Appropriate treatments along roadways vary 

widely based on context. 

The pedestrian network is a connected transportation system 

made up of components such as sidewalks, street crossings, 

shared streets, shared use paths, and in some cases paved 

shoulders. The bicycle network is a connected system made 

up of facilities such as separated bike lanes, bike lanes, bicycle 

boulevards, low-volume streets, shared use paths, and paved 

shoulders. Pedestrian and bicycle networks should allow people 

to access any destination including mixed-use developments, 

transit stations and stops, commercial districts, residential 

areas, and employment centers. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities 

are particularly important where destinations are located in close 

proximity and short trips are likely. 

NETWORK CONNECTIVITY

SAFETY

The design of pedestrian and bicycle network facilities should 

decrease the likelihood and severity of all crashes.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should create a comfortable 

walking and biking environment for all ages and abilities.

COHERENCE

Pedestrian and bicycle network facilities should be delineated 

and continuous throughout the user’s trip.

PREDICTABILITY

Pedestrians and bicyclists should travel on predictable, defined 

facilities.

CONTEXT SENSITIVITY

Pedestrian and bicycle facilities should be appropriate to the 

surrounding environment.

EXPERIMENTATION

Designers should consider innovative solutions to create 

connected networks, particularly at crossing locations where 

conflicts are more likely and on higher-speed streets.

A well-connected 

network of 

pedestrian and 

bicycle facilities 

reduces conflicts 

by providing access 

where desired. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

2 Miles

3 Miles

Station

Shared Use Path

Rail Line

Bikeshed Access

DESIRE LINE
64 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY

DESIGN STRATEGIES

Pedestrian and bicycle networks are planned at many scales 

from region-wide route systems to small-area plans. The 

following strategies address the challenges and potential 

solutions to improve nonmotorized access to a major 

destination in a suburban region. These network challenges 

are common in many communities that were constructed 

with minimal consideration for walking or bicycling needs. 

For additional destination considerations, refer to the design 

topics on School Access, Multimodal Access to Existing 

Transit Stations, and Multimodal Access to New Transit 

Stations.

DISCONNECTED STREET NETWORKS

Typical suburban street networks are a combination of major 

arterials and cul-de-sac developments that create challenges 

for bicyclist and pedestrian circulation. Cul-de-sac street 

networks force people to use the higher-volume, higher-speed 

arterials rather than the low-volume, local streets. These street 

networks lengthen trip routes to the point that people are less 

willing to bike or walk.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Keep block sizes small to reduce pedestrians walking 

through parking lots or other undeveloped areas. 1

• Connect cul-de-sac street networks through a system of 

shared use paths providing key links. 2

BARRIERS

Limited-access highways and railroad tracks can create 

major barriers for people on foot and bike. Infrequent barrier 

crossings create excessive distances for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. Adding barrier crossings such as bridges and 

tunnels will improve network connectivity, provide safer 

and more comfortable crossings, and reconnect bisected 

communities. 3 For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Bridge Design.

PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS

A well-developed pedestrian network promotes walking trips 

by providing facilities that are connected, comfortable, and 

appropriate for their street type. 

A lack of appropriate pedestrian facilities can result in people 

walking in the street, running across the street, or walking on 

private property. Higher-volume multilane roadways require 

pedestrians to cross four or more travel lanes at intersections. 

Long crossing distances expose pedestrians to potential 

conflicts and create a psychological barrier to walking. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide sidewalks on both sides of the street, especially 

higher-volume, higher-speed roadways. 4 For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Accessibility.

• Narrow travel lanes and construct curb extensions and/or 

pedestrian crossing islands to reduce crossing distances. 

5 For more information, refer to the design topics on 

Design Criteria and Lane Width, Enhanced Crossing 

Treatments, and Intersection Geometry.

• Consider enhanced treatments, such as pedestrian 

hybrid beacons or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, at 

uncontrolled crossings. For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Enhanced Crossing Treatments.

• Provide pedestrian countdown signals and accessible 

pedestrian signals at signalized crossings. For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Signalized 

Intersections. 

BICYCLE CONNECTIONS

A well-connected bicycle network can encourage people 

to bike to key area destinations. In addition to appropriate 

facilities along segments, high-quality networks include safe 

and comfortable intersection crossings and connections 

between facilities.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide separated bike lanes on higher-volume, higherspeed roadways. 6 For more information, refer to the 

design topics on Separated Bike Lanes and Separated Bike 

Lanes at Intersections, as well as the FHWA Separated 

Bike Lane Guide 2015.

• Provide standard bike lanes to define space for bicyclists. 

7 For more information, refer to the AASHTO Bike Guide 

2012.

• Provide bicycle boulevards on low-volume, low-speed 

roadways. 8 For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Slow Streets.

• Provide paved shoulders on rural roadways. For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Paved Shoulders.

• Consider enhanced treatments, such as bicycle signals 

or Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacons, at uncontrolled 

crossings of higher-volume, higher-speed roadways. For 

more information, refer to the design topic on Enhanced 

Crossing Treatments.

SHARED USE PATH CONNECTIONS

Regional paths can serve as major components of the 

transportation network. Paths connecting to important 

destinations can increase the number of people walking or 

biking there. Providing a shared use path connection 9

with wayfinding can connect the path users to the destination 

comfortably. For more information, refer to the design topics 

on Shared Use Paths and Midblock Path Intersections.
WAYFINDING AND SIGNS ROUTE-SELECTION APPLICATIONS

Route-selection applications, which allow users to 

identify routes by entering their origin and destination, 

are now available on most mobile devices. Developers 

are currently building options within applications that 

allow users to optimize their bicycle route for different 

characteristics. For example, some riders may 

feel comfortable sharing a higher-volume roadway 

with automobiles. Other riders may want to avoid 

those streets and optimize their route accordingly. 

Applications developed by public agencies must meet 

accessibility requirements.

Wayfinding signs can be used to direct pedestrians and 

bicyclists to key destinations via low-stress routes. 

Curvilinear street networks, such as those shown 

above, can be disorienting to pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Wayfinding signs can help overcome this challenge. Offstreet paths are sometimes difficult to locate, so adding 

signs can be especially helpful to provide connectivity 

within and between neighborhoods. Signs should comply 

with the MUTCD.

NETWORK CONNECTIVITY 65

4

2

2

1

3

7

7

9

8

8

6

6

5

Sidewalk

Separated Bike Lane

Standard Bike Lane

Bicycle Boulevard

Shared Use Path

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge

Curb Extensions

Major Destination

LEGEND

2
66 NETWORK CONNECTIVITY

CASE STUDIES

Creating connections between existing comfortable streets 

and trails guided the development of the Fort Collins bicycle 

network. These “low-stress” facilities consist of low-volume 

and low-speed local streets, local streets with bike lanes, and 

wide, paved shared use paths. Planning focused on locations 

where these streets cross major arterials without signalization 

or where streets are offset across an arterial. Design 

recommendations for these locations vary but emphasize 

creating shorter crossing distances and making drivers aware 

of bicyclists’ presence. Where existing low-stress segments 

were not present, more robust treatments such as separated 

bike lanes were recommended on higher-speed arterials.

The City of Charlotte undertook a connectivity planning 

effort starting in 2006 to overcome the mobility and access 

challenges created by its disconnected street network. An 

initial project identified 20 high-priority areas within the city 

where barriers precluded convenient pedestrian and bicyclist 

access. In 2007, the City launched a capital program with the 

purpose of connecting local streets.

The City’s connectivity efforts are supported by Charlotte’s 

subdivision ordinance. These regulations prohibit the use of 

cul-de-sacs in street network design except where geographic 

or topographic barriers necessitate their use. In such cases, 

a pedestrian and bicycle connection may still be required 

where the street network is fragmented. Cul-de-sacs are 

also prohibited in transit station areas where pedestrian 

connections are prioritized.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

MASON TRAIL

HICKORY TRAIL

EAST 

WEST SPRING CREEK TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

POWER TR

MASON TRAIL

EAST POUDRE TRAIL

WEST POUDRE TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

n

n n

n

n 

n n

n

n

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

BUFFERED BIKE LANE 

BIKE LANE

PRIORITY SHARED LANE

SIGNED ROUTE

LEGEND

TWO-WAY SIDEPATH 

SEGMENT

ADD SIGNAL

SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT

ADD MEDIAN

PAVED TRAILS/SHARED- USE PATHS

PROTECTED BIKE LANE

n

Protected bike lanes 

are candidates for 

the pilot program, 

and not necessarily 

complete by 2020.

MASON TRAIL

HICKORY TRAIL

EAST 

WEST SPRING CREEK TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

POWER TR

MASON TRAIL

EAST POUDRE TRAIL

WEST POUDRE TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

FOSSIL CREEK TRAIL

n

n n

n

n 

n n

n

n

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

n

n n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

BUFFERED BIKE LANE 

BIKE LANE

PRIORITY SHARED LANE

SIGNED ROUTE

LEGEND

TWO-WAY SIDEPATH 

SEGMENT

ADD SIGNAL

SIGNAL IMPROVEMENT

ADD MEDIAN

PAVED TRAILS/SHARED- USE PATHS

PROTECTED BIKE LANE

n

Protected bike lanes 

are candidates for 

the pilot program, 

and not necessarily 

complete by 2020.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Guidebook for Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measurement. 2016.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at 

Interchanges. 2014.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014. 

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

Source: Charlotte Department of Transportation

Source: FC Bikes, City of Fort Collins

STREET CONNECTIVITY POLICY

CHARLOTTE, NC

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN

FORT COLLINS, CO
67

Families and staff traveling to and from school generate 

significant weekday traffic—whether by foot, bike, school bus, 

public transit, and private vehicle—for concentrated periods 

(typically within a 20-minute timeframe). As community gathering 

spaces, schools may also generate evening and weekend travel. 

As multiple travel modes intersect around the school zone, 

conflicts often occur on the school site and at intersection or 

driveway crossings nearby. Children walking or biking to school 

are particularly vulnerable. Designers should give consideration 

to vehicle speeds, intersection geometry, crossing treatments, 

and pedestrian and bicycle facilities along key routes to school. 

Education and enforcement should encourage proper driver, 

pedestrian, and bicyclist behavior.

Compared to new schools, which are typically located farther 

from neighborhoods on larger sites, constraints at older schools 

may limit the the ability to provide separate space for all modes. 

However, careful planning and design of transportation networks 

around both older and newer schools can encourage pedestrian 

and bicycle travel, reduce multimodal conflicts, and make travel 

more efficient. Encouraging walking and bicycling to school can 

improve academic performance (Active Living Research 2015), 

community health, and reduce vehicle traffic. In practice, schools 

with infrastructure improvements prioritizing bicyclists and 

pedestrians had an 18-percent increase in travel by those modes 

(McDonald et al. 2014). 

SCHOOL ACCESS

SAFETY

Facilities around schools should minimize conflicting 

movements for different modes and slow speeds to mitigate 

the impacts of conflicts where they may occur.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

The unique needs of children, as well as their parents, who are 

traveling by different modes to school should be considered.

COHERENCE

Facilities should clearly delineate a path of travel that is 

recognizable and highly visible to children.

PREDICTABILITY

Children’s walking and bicycling travel patterns may be less 

predictable than those of adults, so school areas must be 

designed to encourage predictable behavior.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

Children‘s smaller size should be considered to ensure clear 

sight lines in any land use, environment, or traffic context.

EXPERIMENTATION

Design schools to prioritize access by walking and biking and 

use creative methods to encourage children, as well as staff, to 

walk or bike.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES

Poor roadway and intersection design around schools 

can contribute to crashes involving children walking 

or biking to school.
68 SCHOOL ACCESS

EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

Infrastructure improvements should be supplemented 

with education to encourage proper behavior by 

drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Everyone who 

accesses the school site–students, parents, staff, 

bus drivers–should receive clear direction on how to 

access the school campus at arrival and dismissal. 

When new walking and biking infrastructure is 

constructed near the school, outreach should 

be conducted to the school community through 

pamphlets and social media to familiarize all users 

with its intent and proper use.

Many school sites are designed primarily for ease of access 

by motor vehicles. As a result, conflicts often occur on school 

sites between people who walk or bicycle to school and those 

who drive. This is a particular problem considering that many 

school systems do not offer bus service to students who live in 

close proximity to the school, creating a great need to address 

walking and bicycling issues along routes that lead to schools, 

as well as in school zones (streets that directly abut school 

sites).

ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS

To reduce conflicts among modes, separate space should 

be provided on the school site for pedestrians and bicyclists 

1 , bus riders 2 , staff parking 3 , and those picked up or 

dropped off by private vehicles 4 to safely access school 

entrances.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Pedestrian and bicycle routes should be continuous and 

lead directly to school entrances.

• Conflict points between modes should be minimized by 

moving bus stops or relocating pickup and dropoff loops to 

maintain separation. 

• Sidewalks on-site should be a minimum of 8 feet wide to 

accommodate high pedestrian volumes (FHWA 2006). 

• Shared use paths on-site should be a minimum of 11 

feet wide to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and 

bicyclists. For more information, refer to the design topic 

on Shared Use Paths. 

• Driveways should prioritize pedestrians and bicyclists by 

maintaining the grade of an intersecting sidewalk or shared 

use path and altering the grade of the motorist’s path of 

travel. 

• Driveway flare radii should be minimized to ensure slow 

vehicle turning speeds and to reduce the exposure time for 

pedestrians. 

• School bus loading zones should be designated clearly with 

signs and pavement markings. Children should be dropped 

off curbside, directly onto the sidewalk.

• Private vehicle pickup and dropoff zones should be 

designated clearly with signs and pavement markings. The 

pickup and dropoff area should not require children to walk 

between vehicles or have vehicles straddle a pedestrian 

crossing.

• Bicycle parking racks 5 should be provided as close as 

possible to school entrances, without creating conflicts 

with pedestrians. 

DESIGN STRATEGIES

SCHOOL ZONES

School zones may be designated and identified with signs and 

pavement markings as outlined in the MUTCD. School zones 

may specify a reduced speed limit during school hours or when 

children are present. Periodic school zone enforcement is a 

common and effective method for reducing speeds in school 

zones. (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 7B.08–7B.10)

STREET CROSSINGS

Street crossings, whether controlled or uncontrolled, are the 

areas of common conflict between modes in school zones. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Crossings should promote predictable movements and be 

accessible for all pedestrians. For more information, refer 

to the design topic on Accessibility.

• Crosswalks 6 should be marked with high-visibility 

ladder-style crosswalks (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 3B.18). 

Consider crossing guards 7 to maximize safety at 

locations with challenging pedestrian and bicycle 

conditions. 

• Crossing distances should be shortened by narrowing travel 

lanes, adding a pedestrian crossing island, or adding curb 

extensions 8 to allow for slower moving children and 

adults to cross safely. 

• Uncontrolled crossings should be identified clearly with 

well-painted pavement markings, warning signs, or other 

enhanced treatments such as Rectangular Rapid Flash 

Beacons or raised crosswalks 9 that alert drivers to the 

crossing location. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Enhanced Crossing Treatments and Midblock 

Path Intersections.

• At signalized crossings, signal timings 10 need to 

accommodate children who tend to walk slower and in 

large groups. Pedestrian phases should be protected 

from turning vehicles and set to pedestrian recall, such 

that the pedestrian phase comes up every cycle. For more 

information, refer to the design topics on Turning Vehicles 

and Signalized Intersections. 
SCHOOL ACCESS 69

CROSSING GUARDS INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION

Adult school crossing guards play an important role for 

children and families who walk or bicycle to school. Young 

children may lack the motor and cognitive skills required 

to safely navigate street crossings. By helping students 

cross the street safely at key locations, crossing guards 

can help parents feel comfortable about their children 

walking or bicycling to school. Crossing guards provide 

a visual cue to drivers that children are present and, by 

example, help children to develop the skills necessary to 

cross streets safely.

While streets and sidewalks adjacent to school sites 

are typically designed and controlled by city or State 

transportation agencies, school sites themselves 

may be controlled by a separate jurisdiction or 

school district. Cooperation between school districts 

and other governmental agencies, including both 

infrastructure and programmatic strategies, is key to 

decreasing harmful conflicts in school areas.

1

4

2

3

5

1

1

1

5

8 9

Sidewalk

Shared Use Path

Separated Bike Lane

Standard Bike Lane

School Bus Circulation/Loading

Private Vehicle Circulation/

Loading

School Entrance

Crossing Guard

Curb Extensions

Raised Crosswalk

Crosswalk + Refuge Island

Crosswalks

Bicycle Parking

Motor Vehicle Parking

Signalized Intersection

LEGEND

6

10

7

7
70 SCHOOL ACCESS

CASE STUDIES

In September 2015, Arlington Public Schools in Arlington, 

VA, opened the doors to Discovery Elementary School, a new 

school built on the same site as an existing middle school, 

Williamsburg Middle. Throughout the planning and design of 

the new school, Arlington Public Schools worked diligently 

to provide safe and efficient access for students and staff to 

walk or bike to school and to mitigate the traffic and parking 

impacts of the two schools on the surrounding neighborhood. 

Key features of the combined campus include multiple 

sidewalk connections to the school site, an organized oncampus sidewalk network that provides efficient building 

access without driveway and parking lot crossings; a separate 

bicycle route for student bicyclists; a shared bus loop centered 

between the two schools, separate from the parent dropoff and 

pickup areas; and private vehicle student dropoff and pickup 

areas that contain pavement markings and directional signs to 

encourage proper procedures and behaviors.

In addition, Arlington Public Schools created a transportation 

demand management plan for the two schools, detailing 

programs to encourage active modes of travel to school by 

staff and students. The school provided parents with maps 

of example walking and bicycling routes to school, detailed 

written procedures for private vehicle dropoff and pickup, and 

a circulation map showing how all modes access the school 

site.

Active Living Research. Active Education: Growing Evidence on Physical Activity and Academic Performance. 2015.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 2011.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Guidance Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety 

Countermeasures. 2012. 

Federal Highway Administration. University Course of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. Publication No. FHWAHRT-05-133. 2006.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Institute of Transportation Engineers Technical Committee. School Site Planning, Design and Transportation. 2013.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013. 

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Safe Routes to School Online Guide. Last updated July 2015.

McDonald et al. “Impact of the Safe Routes to School Program on Walking and Bicycling.” Journal of the American Planning 

Association, Volume 80, Issue 2, 2014.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Example walking and biking routes to 

Discovery Elementary School

Source: Arlington Public Schools, Arlington, VA

DISCOVERY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

ARLINGTON, VA
71

Modal conflicts at transit stations vary depending on the size of 

the station and nature of transit services provided. Pedestrians 

and bicyclists may conflict with buses at access points to on-site 

bus bays or along on-street bus stops. Where passenger car 

parking garages or lots are provided, car/bike and car/pedestrian 

conflicts are typical. On station sites and at approaches, 

conflicts between pedestrians and bicyclists can occur because 

these users frequently share the same facilities, including 

sidewalks, pathways, and crosswalks.

To address conflicts through station retrofits, planners and 

designers should first identify bicycle and pedestrian trip 

generators and catchment zones in the station’s service area. 

Desire lines and travel routes from each catchment zone can be 

evaluated for safety, comfort, and convenience. Potential conflict 

areas can be identified at the station and in surrounding areas.

It is important to minimize and mitigate conflicts in order to 

increase safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians, 

and thereby to increase the use of these modes as a means to 

access transit. For safety improvements to achieve these goals, 

the following principles should be applied: pedestrians and 

bicyclists seek the most direct route possible; bicycle parking 

options should be secure and convenient; and infrastructure 

improvements should address on-site, off-site, and approaching 

roadways through agency and interjurisdictional coordination.

MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

SAFETY

At and around transit stations, conflicts between vulnerable 

road users, private vehicles, and transit buses should be 

reduced through the separation of modes. 

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Access to and from the station should serve all users and 

provide a sense of comfort.

COHERENCE

Access to and from the station should be provided along a 

clear path of travel for each mode. 

PREDICTABILITY

Access routes to the station should have clear right-of-way 

assignments that create predictable behaviors for all users.

CONTEXT SENSITIVITY

The station and its surroundings should support community 

health, economic, and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Transit agencies should consider innovative and creative 

solutions to address conflicts through coordination.

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES

Poor site planning at 

transit stations can 

contribute to crashes 

between various 

modes accessing the 

station.
72 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONS

MAINTENANCE

Good surface quality is essential for sidewalks and 

paths. Maintenance should be conducted routinely 

to eliminate uneven pavement surfaces and trim 

vegetation. During winter months, sidewalks and 

paths should be cleared of snow and ice to maintain 

access for pedestrians and bicyclists.

DESIGN STRATEGIES

In general, conflicts at and around transit stations can be 

mitigated through well-designed retrofits that prioritize direct 

and convenient pedestrian and bicycle circulation. Installation 

of barriers and creation of circuitous pedestrian and bicycle 

routes to the station entrance should be avoided. 

Due to typically high volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists 

at and around transit stations, consideration should be given 

to separating modes as they approach the station and at the 

station itself. Where separation is not feasible, sidewalks 

should be wide enough to accommodate both bicyclists and 

pedestrians safely. Sidewalk width should accommodate peak 

period boarding and alighting volumes on a site-specific basis. 

Preferred dimensions range from 10- to 30-feet wide. For more 

information, refer to the Highway Capacity Manual.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide street crossing improvements on all legs of 

intersections near the station. 1

• Provide context-appropriate midblock crossings, if 

necessary, to accommodate direct pedestrian and bicycle 

movements to and from the station entrance. These 

are particularly important where local or regional bus 

connections stop on-street and not within the station site 

itself. 2 For more information, refer to the design topics 

on Enhanced Crossing Treatments and Bus Stops.

• Reduce pedestrian crossing distances by installing 

pedestrian crossing islands or curb extensions. 3

• Tighten curb radii to reduce vehicle turning speeds or 

provide slip lanes and crossing islands to accommodate 

bus turning movements. 4

• Provide bicycle and pedestrian accommodations and 

wayfinding across station surface parking lots. Ensure 

walkways from accessible parking and loading to 

accessible station entrances are as direct as possible.

• Provide designated crossings at bus loading, pick-up and 

drop-off areas, and motor vehicle access roads.

• Align grade-separated crossing structures with pedestrian 

and bicycle desire lines where management of at-grade 

conflicts is infeasible. 5

• Enhance pedestrian crossings such as raised crosswalks, 

mitigation of poor sight distances, and other measures that 

will slow vehicle speeds. 2

• Install new sidewalks along well-worn tracks on grass (goat 

paths) that enter or cross portions of the station site. 6

• Provide direct bicycle connections to the station via 

separated bike lanes or shared use paths along desire lines 

that are not served by streets. 

• Ensure that nearby paths and trails are linked to the station 

and that wayfinding signs are provided. 7

• Provide bike channels—flat ramps parallel to the stairs on 

which bicycles can be rolled—on stairways to minimize 

conflicts with users of pedestrian ramps. Handrail designs 

must meet current accessibility standards. For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Bridge Design. 

• Separate bicyclists from bus-only access roads and 

driveways on the station site, where possible, by providing 

adjacent parallel bicycle routes.

• Minimize dismount zones—locations where bicycle riding 

is prohibited or discouraged. Their use should be limited 

to station lobbies, concourses, and areas with consistently 

high pedestrian volumes.

BICYCLE PARKING

Bicycling serves as a first- and last-mile connection to transit 

stations. As a result, transit stations should provide ample 

bicycle parking to accommodate both short- and long-term 

needs.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide a variety of parking options, such as high-quality 

access-controlled parking areas, on-demand lockers, and 

enclosed bike racks. 

• Locate bicycle parking along or easily visible from the 

bicycle access routes leading to the station entrance. 

• Distribute bicycle parking equipment on the station site to 

conveniently serve all bicycle access routes. 8

• Locate rack parking as close as possible to the station 

entrance, without creating conflicts with pedestrians in 

heavy pedestrian flow areas. 9

• Lockers and high-quality access-controlled bicycle parking 

may be located further from the entrance, but should be 

adjacent to primary bicyclist access routes. 10

For more information, refer to the design topics on Transit 

Conflicts, Traffic Calming and Design Speed, Network 

Connectivity, Intersection Geometry, and Separated Bike 

Lanes.
MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONS 73

INTER-JURISDICTIONAL COORDINATION ACCESSIBILITY

Transit stations are typically owned and maintained by 

transit agencies while the adjacent streets may be owned 

and maintained by local and State highway agencies. To 

provide a continuous pedestrian and bicycle network to 

the station entrances and exits, jurisdictional coordination 

is necessary. Agencies should conduct joint walking and 

biking assessments for the stations and surrounding 

networks to determine potential safety improvements and 

identify the responsible agencies for all the improvements. 

All transit stations need to meet all Federal 

accessibility standards as adopted by U.S. Department 

of Justice and U.S. Department of Transportation. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on

Accessibility. When retrofitting an existing transit 

station to comply with accessibility requirements, 

consider broader bicycle and pedestrian access and 

safety needs. Ensure that pedestrian ramps support 

other users on wheels such as pedestrians with 

strollers, push scooters, and bicyclists.

3

2

4

5

6

6

7

8

10

1

New/Improved Sidewalk

Existing Sidewalk

Separated Bike Lane

Shared Use Path

Bus Stop

Curb Extensions

Raised Crosswalk

Crosswalk + Refuge Island

Crosswalks

Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge

Covered Bicycle Parking

Bicycle Parking

Accessibility Improvement

Station Entrance

LEGEND

9

2
74 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONS

CASE STUDIES

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) 

conducted a system-wide assessment of pedestrian 

and bicycle access for all 86 Metrorail stations. WMATA 

evaluated each station site’s access, including the provision 

of bicycle parking, as well connectivity within 0.5 to 1 miles 

from station entrances. These efforts resulted in more than 

3,000 individual projects across 30 types of deficiencies and 

recommendations. Example recommendations included barrier 

removal, nonmotorized access through parking lots, dirt-toconcrete path conversion, pedestrian amenities, accessible 

ramps, lighting, covered bicycle parking, and more.

WMATA prioritized projects into its Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Element of the 2012–2017 Capital Improvement Program. 

Projects with immediate public safety implications were 

addressed first using WMATA staff and on-call contractors.

The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 

received funding through the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act to plan and design high-quality bicycle 

parking facilities at priority transit stations. A detailed station 

inventory analysis was performed to evaluate existing bicycle 

parking needs for each bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail 

station within the system. Site-specific design treatments 

were developed to maintain access and circulation to and from 

the bicycle parking facility, siting the bicycle parking facility 

in a safe and visible location, and maximizing the number of 

bicycle parking spaces at each transit station. Bicycle parking 

recommendations included Pedal & Park facilities, which are 

high-quality access-controlled secure bicycle racks, and Bike 

Port facilities which are covered bicycle racks.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Bicycle Parking Guidelines. 2010. 

Federal Highway Administration. Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of 

International Practices. 2015. 

Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. 2008.

Transportation Research Board. Highway Capacity Manual. 2010.

Transportation Research Board. Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. 2012.

Transportation Research Board. “TCRP Web-Only Document 44: Literature Review for Providing Access to Public 

Transportation Stations.” Submitted March 2009. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_44.pdf.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT 

AUTHORITY ACCESS PLAN

WASHINGTON, DC METRO AREA

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY BICYCLE PARKING

BOSTON, MA METRO AREA
75

An effective public transit network enables people to access 

rail and bus stations by bicycling, walking, and feeder transit 

services. Accommodating a wide variety of access modes at 

transit stations, including pick-up and drop-off areas and motor 

vehicle parking at suburban stations, increases ridership and fare 

revenue. However, it also increases the potential for conflicts 

between modes. 

For newly constructed transit stations, it is important to have 

station access in place for all travel modes at the opening 

of the station; retrofitting once opened can be difficult. It is 

recommended to establish a modal hierarchy and design transit 

stations for vulnerable road users first. This hierarchy should 

be applied to minimize conflicts between vulnerable road 

users and other station users such as buses and other transit 

vehicles, private vehicles accessing pick-up and drop-off areas, 

and private vehicles parking at the station. The new station 

configuration should communicate this hierarchy.

Refer to the design topic on Multimodal Access to Existing 

Transit Stations for strategies to retrofit existing transit stations 

and reduce conflicts. This design topic focuses on pedestrian 

and bicycle access to new rail transit stations. Additional 

considerations may be necessary for bus rapid transit stations. 

MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO NEW TRANSIT STATIONS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

SAFETY

Through site design at transit stations, the likelihood of 

crashes between transit vehicles, private vehicles, pedestrians, 

and bicyclists should be reduced.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Station access should be comfortable and accommodate all 

travel modes. 

COHERENCE

The station should have a clear path of travel to station 

entrances and exits. 

PREDICTABILITY

Circulation facilities on the station site should have clear rightof-way assignments that create predictable behaviors for all 

users.

CONTEXT SENSITIVITY

The station should be consistent with and support adjacent 

land uses.

EXPERIMENTATION

Transit agencies should consider station access for all modes 

during the planning stages of new station.

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND ACCESS HIERARCHY

TRANSIT

STATION

ACCESS

HIERARCHY

pedestrians higher

bicyclists

feeder

transit

pick-up & 

drop-off

park & ride lower priority
76 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO NEW TRANSIT STATIONS

DESIGN STRATEGIES

Transit stations should be designed using a clear modal 

hierarchy, making it most convenient to walk or bike to the 

station. To understand desire lines for a new transit station, 

planners and designers can conduct a walk and bike shed 

analysis and/or pedestrian and bicycle assessment. For more 

information, refer to the design topic on Network Connectivity 

and the U.S. Department of Transportation Pedestrian and 

Bicyclist Road Safety Assessments Summary Report. Based 

on the shed analysis, the station layout can be developed 

to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle access routes, ensure 

accessibility requirements, and reduce conflicts with other 

modes.

Transit stations are typically owned and maintained by transit 

agencies while the adjacent streets may be owned and 

maintained by local or State highway agencies. During the 

planning of transit stations, inter-jurisdictional coordination is 

necessary to ensure that access for all modes is functional and 

safe when the station opens. Jurisdictions should consider 

pedestrian and bicycle access to station entrances and exits 

from nearby destinations and future developments. 

REDUCE CONFLICTS WITH PRIVATE VEHICLES

In the planning and design process, conflicts among private 

vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists should be avoided where 

possible and mitigated where it is unavoidable.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Configure private vehicle parking lots and garages so that 

they do not block direct pedestrian and bicycle desire lines 

to the station entrance. 1

• Design surface parking lots to include walkways and 

bikeways across the lot for safe passage. Where needed, 

design parking garages for safe pedestrian and bicycle 

through movements. 2

• Provide bicycle and pedestrian crossings of access roads 

and driveways leading to private vehicle parking lots and 

garages. 3

• Configure passenger pick-up and drop-off areas near 

station entrances without impeding direct access for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 4

REDUCE CONFLICTS WITH BUSES

Site planning for new transit stations should minimize conflicts 

between buses, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Buses are wider, 

have larger turning radii, and larger blind spots than private 

vehicles.

CONSIDERATIONS

• If the station includes a bus terminal, provide pedestrian 

access between bus bays. 5

• If avoiding a conflict is not feasible, provide traffic calming 

measures that encourage drivers to maintain safe speeds 

on station sites. 6

ADDRESS POTENTIAL BARRIERS 

Pedestrians and bicyclists usually choose the most direct path 

to a station, even if it means crossing roadways away from 

designated crosswalks or cutting through private property. 

When developing a transit station site plan, consider how to 

incorporate these desire lines and encourage compliance.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Use pedestrian and bicycle bridges and tunnels, and welldesigned at-grade crossings to ensure that immovable 

barriers such as major highways, interchange ramps, 

arterial roads, railroad lines, streams, and secure 

institutions do not become barriers to direct access. 7

• Avoid the creation of unsafe pedestrian conditions and 

the degradation of permeable landscapes by locating 

and designing stormwater facilities, tree plantings, and 

landscaped areas to enhance, not block, direct pedestrian 

and bicycle access to the station.

• Ensure that transit-oriented development on, and 

immediately adjacent to, the station site is configured for 

convenient public pedestrian and bicycle access. 8

ACCESS FOR BICYCLISTS

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide separated bike lanes or shared use paths to station 

entrances. 9 

• Ensure that nearby paths and trails are linked to the station 

and that wayfinding signs are provided. 10 

• Provide appropriate bicycle facilities on station access 

roads that serve mixed traffic. Separate bicycle and bus 

access routes to maintain safety and comfort. 11 

• Install covered U-style bicycle racks near station entrances. 

12

• Consider installing high-quality access-controlled bicycle 

parking facilities within the station. 13

• In locations where additional development in the station 

service area is expected, plan sufficient space on-site 

where bicycle parking can be expanded to accommodate 

growing demand.

• Consider space for location of bicycle sharing systems. 14

• On station sites that have multiple level station designs, 

provide bike channels on stairways to enable bicyclists 

to use direct routes. Handrail designs must meet current 

accessibility standards. For more information, refer to the 

design topic on Bridge Design. To minimize conflicts with 

pedestrians and persons with disabilities, plan elevator car 

sizes to accommodate standard bicycles. 
MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO NEW TRANSIT STATIONS 77

New Transit Station Site

County

Ro

a

d

Bus-only Road

Local Street

State Highway (limited access)

WAYFINDING SAFETY AND SECURITY

New transit stations should apply Crime Prevention 

Through Environmental Design concepts to increase 

pedestrian safety and comfort such as lighting, 

appropriate landscape design, and use of fencing. 

Pedestrian and bicycle access routes should be welllit through parking garages to accommodate direct 

pedestrian and bicycle movements to the station 

entrance. Additionally, adjacent land uses should have 

direct and convenient bicycle and pedestrian access 

to the station site and station entrance.

Wayfinding signs for pedestrians and bicyclists increase 

psychological comfort, guide them to the safest routes, 

and enable them to focus on safe travel behavior rather 

than route navigation. In general, signs should be provided 

on bicycle routes to stations along non-arterial routes of 

0.5 miles or longer. Provide pedestrian wayfinding at spot 

locations within 0.25 miles of the station. Signs should be 

compliant with the MUTCD and PROWAG.

Sidewalk

Separated Bike Lane

Shared Use Path

Bus Access/Stop

Motor Vehicle Access/

Pick-up and Drop-off Area

Rail Alignment

Curb Extensions

Raised Crosswalk

Bridge

Covered Bicycle Parking

Bicycle Parking

Bikeshare Station

Motor Vehicle Parking

LEGEND

1

2

3

3

3

4 9

9

9

5

10

13

13

12

11

14

6

7

7
78 MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO NEW TRANSIT STATIONS

CASE STUDIES

The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority completed a system expansion opening five new stations on the 

Silver Line in July 2014. The current end-of-line station, WiehleReston East, sits in the middle of the Dulles Access Road. Station access is from either side of the roadway using elevated 

walkways. The Washington & Old Dominion Trail runs just north 

of the station, offering both pedestrians and bicyclists easy 

access to the station. The new station has bicycle racks, lockers, and a state-of-the-art high security, indoor bicycle parking 

station. The station also contains a bus-only entrance for local 

and regional buses with separate vehicular access to the pickup and drop-off area and daily parking garage. 

The Federal Transit Administration convened an on-theground pedestrian and bicycle network safety assessment in 

May 2015. The assessment included Federal, State, regional, 

and local agency officials, along with local stakeholders and 

advocates. Working in teams, traveling by foot, by wheelchair, 

and by bike, the assessment identified improvements to the 

pedestrian network, bicycle network, and intersections.

Through jurisdictional coordination, the wide major arterials 

that sit between the station and surrounding areas continue 

to be improved to provide safe, accessible, and comfortable 

pathways to the station for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. Bicycle Parking Guidelines. 2010. 

Federal Highway Administration. Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of 

International Practices. 2015. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. 

Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. 2008.

Transportation Research Board. Report 153: Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations. 2012.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011. 

United States Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Assessment Summary Report. 2015.

Source: Linda Dell’Omo, Alice in the Netherlands

Central Station in Utrecht, the Netherlands has constructed 

an indoor bicycle parking facility with 4,200 bicycle parking 

spaces. This facility was constructed as part of a rehabilitation of the transit station where a three-story bicycle parking 

facility is located. With over 900 trains leaving the station 

daily, approximately 40 percent of train passengers travel 

to the station by bicycle, creating a demand for high-quality 

bicycle parking facilities. Bicycle access to the parking facility 

is conducted with separated bike lanes that lead to the station 

without conflicting with pedestrian station access. 

WIEHLE-RESTON EAST METRORAIL STATION

RESTON, VA

CENTRAL STATION

UTRECHT, THE NETHERLANDS
79

Transportation networks in all land use settings enable people 

to walk, bike, and/or take transit to and from their destinations. 

A single trip may consist of using multiple transportation modes, 

for example walking to a bus stop, riding the bus downtown, 

and bicycling the last half mile to the office on bike share. Each 

transportation mode should operate safely and efficiently without 

negatively impacting others.

Transit conflicts can be a broad topic. This design topic 

focuses on conflicts between transit vehicles, such as buses 

and streetcars, and vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians accessing bus stops. These principles 

and strategies can be applied to other modes such as bus rapid 

transit, subways, or heavy railroad stations.

Conflicts between transit vehicles and vulnerable road users 

can consist of a bus accessing a stop by crossing a standard 

bike lane, a bicyclist traveling across or along rail tracks, or 

a pedestrian or bicyclists passing a bus stop with waiting 

passengers. Conflicts also occur between pedestrians and motor 

vehicles when accessing or departing from a bus stop.

Transit conflicts may be addressed through designs that clearly 

delineate the path for each mode and maximize predictability 

between users.

Source: Nathan Wilkes, City of Austin, Texas

TRANSIT CONFLICTS

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

SAFETY

Roadways should allow safe operation of transit vehicles and 

vulnerable road users by minimizing potential crashes.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

The design should provide a sense of comfort to vulnerable 

road users and transit passengers while accommodating 

transit operations. 

COHERENCE

The path of travel for each mode should be clearly delineated 

through design, pavement markings, and signs.

PREDICTABILITY

The design should create predictable behaviors that allow 

transit vehicles, motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians to have 

clear right-of-way assignments.

CONTEXT SENSITIVITY

Designs should respond to typical users and conflict types in a 

manner that complements community character and supports 

community health, economic, and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Designers should consider innovative solutions to reducing 

bicycle hazards at streetcar tracks

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES

Side-swipe Road hazard Pedestrian Crossing
80 TRANSIT CONFLICTS

NETWORK EDUCATION

Connected networks for pedestrians and bicyclists allow 

convenient access to and from transit facilities including 

stations and bus stops. Factor in desire lines when 

installing new transit facilities. For more information, refer 

to the design topic on Network Connectivity. 

Educating transit vehicle drivers to be aware and 

cautious around vulnerable users can help reduce 

conflicts. Drivers should receive trainings, ideally 

through driving simulators, on how to operate when 

bicyclists and pedestrians are present. Bus drivers 

should be alert that the exiting passengers may cross 

in front of the bus. Educating bicyclists to be cautious 

and courteous at transit stops can help reduce 

conflicts. Consider installing educational signs at 

strategic locations such as on buses and shelters.

DESIGN STRATEGIES

BUS AND BIKE CONFLICTS

A common conflict between buses and bicyclists is referred to 

as bus-bike leapfrogging. Bus-bike leapfrogging occurs when 

a bus and bike are traveling on a roadway in the same direction 

and pass each other at multiple places. The bicyclist is 

traveling at a constant speed with the bus passing, pulling into 

a stop, departing the stop, passing the bicyclist, and traveling 

to the next stop. This crossing of users can create multiple 

instances where conflicts can occur.

Bus-bike leap-frogging is uncomfortable for bicyclists as 

well as for bus drivers and passengers as it can impact bus 

schedules. On one-way streets it may be feasible to avoid 

transit conflicts entirely by locating bicycle facilities on 

the other side of the street. Otherwise, implementation of 

a floating bus stop can eliminate leap-frogging, improving 

bicyclist’s comfort and bus operation. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Provide clear indication of the purpose and operations of 

the floating bus stop for pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Provide adequate tapers for bicyclists to transition from 

bicycle lane to behind the bus stop. 1

• Provide bus stop passengers amenities such as shelters, 

benches, and trash barrels outside of bicycle travel. 2

• Maintain accessible pedestrian access to stop amenities, 

sidewalk, and boarding areas. 

• Provide continuous separated bicycle facility behind the 

boarding area. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Separated Bike Lanes 3 (FHWA Separated Bike 

Lane Guide 2015, pp. 92–96).

• Provide clearly marked crosswalks from the island to the 

adjacent sidewalk 4 (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 

2015, pp. 92–96).

• Consider a raised crosswalk across the bicycle facility 5

(FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, pp. 92–96).

• Consider yield or stop lines and YIELD [or STOP] HERE 

FOR PEDESTRIANS (R1-5) signs to alert bicyclists of the 

passenger crosswalks (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 2B.11).

2

4

3

5

1
TRANSIT CONFLICTS 81

BUS STOP PLACEMENT

Bus stop placement is a key component of reducing 

conflicts between bus passengers, pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and motorists. Bus stops should be located 

at appropriate distances based on the context of the 

area. For example, bus stop spacing in central business 

districts is less than 400 feet. Bus stops should 

complement the sidewalk and bicycle facilities to connect 

passengers with the surrounding pedestrian and bicycle 

networks. At intersections, bus stops can be provided 

on the near- or far-side of the intersection. Far-side bus 

6

TRACK AND BIKE CONFLICTS

Cities are competing to provide multimodal transportation 

networks that focus on complete streets and public 

transportation options. Some have reintroduced light rail and 

streetcar vehicles to their transit systems. Light rail transit or 

streetcars, also known as trolley cars, are short public transit 

vehicles that run on rails on a regular schedule. Light rail 

transit typically operates within its own exclusive space and 

streetcars operate in a travel lane along a roadway. Boston, 

Portland, Seattle, and San Francisco are a few examples of 

cities that operate light rail and streetcars as part of their 

transportation systems.

Between the resurgence of light rail and streetcars and 

increases in bicycling, conflicts between bicyclists and tracks 

may become more common. Tracks typically contain a gap, 

called the flangeway, which can be a hazard for bicycle tires. 

In wet conditions, tracks may be slippery, causing bicyclists to 

lose control. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Consider using the best track surface material for safe 

bicycle travel especially when the surface may be regularly 

wet. 

• Consider reducing the flangeway or using a flangeway filler 

product. 

• Provide pavement markings such as bike lane lines, bike 

symbols, and green colored pavement surfaces to direct 

bicyclists to cross the tracks between 60 and 90 degrees to 

reduce the risk of getting bicycle tires caught in the tracks. 

6

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 4-38)

• Consider a median to force deflection of bicyclist to cross 

the tracks at the appropriate angle and prevent illegal 

parking by motorists. 7

• Provide advance track warning signs to alert bicyclists of 

the tracks ahead. 8

stops are preferred when feasible as near-side bus 

stops can block visibility between turning vehicles 

and pedestrians. At midblock bus stop locations, 

depending on the proximity of other crosswalks, 

a midblock crossing may be necessary and may 

require enhanced crossing treatments. For more 

information, refer to the design topics on Enhanced 

Crossing Treatments, Bus Stops, and Midblock Path 

Intersections. 

(AASHTO Transit Guide 2014, p. 5-11–5-13)

8

7

STREETCAR 

TRACKS 

BIKES USE

CAUTION
82 TRANSIT CONFLICTS

CASE STUDIES

With the number of bicyclists increasing in Boston, the City 

has seen an increase in bicycle crashes resulting from the 

presence of in-street rail lines. The City decided to address 

the issue of bicyclist interaction with in-street rail through 

pavement markings and green colored pavement. 

At intersections where track angles were creating challenges 

for bicyclists, dashed white lane lines with green colored 

pavement were added to help bicyclists position themselves to 

cross the tracks at near 90-degree angles. 

Boston also has streetcars that run along the center of streets 

that are too narrow for exclusive bike lanes. To encourage 

bicyclists to stay in the right lane, the City installed shared 

lane markings and left-turn queue boxes to assist bicyclists in 

making left turns.

The City of Seattle has installed bus stop floating islands at 

a majority of bus stops along Dexter Avenue, a major bicycle 

commuting corridor that has peak bicycle volumes of over 300 

bicyclists per hour. This 1.5-mile corridor carries buses at 10 

minute headways during peak periods. The bus stop floating 

islands allow buses to stop in-lane, decreasing bus delay 

and allowing buses to easily re-enter traffic without waiting 

for a gap in passing motorists. The buffered bike lane is 

routed behind the bus stop, which prevents conflicts between 

bicyclists and stopped buses. The bus stop floating islands are 

accessible, with curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces. 

Some of the bus stops include railings across the back of the 

bus islands to encourage pedestrians to cross the bike lane at 

a designated point. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for Geometric Design of Transit Facilities on 

Highways and Streets. 2014.

Federal Highway Administration. Guidance Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety Countermeasures. 

2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013. 

Source: Nicole Freedman

FLOATING BUS STOP

SEATTLE, WA

DIRECTING BIKES ACROSS STREETCAR TRACKS

BOSTON, MA
83

Freight movement is essential for a strong economy. Freight 

vehicles range from single unit box trucks to large tractor-trailer 

combinations. These large vehicles are wider, have larger turning 

radii, and more blind spots than typical passenger vehicles. 

Freight vehicles have significant mass, creating the potential for 

serious or fatal injuries when involved in a bicycle or pedestrian 

collision. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration indicates that among crashes involving large 

trucks, 11 percent of people killed were non-occupants such as 

pedestrians or bicyclists (Traffic Safety Facts: Large Trucks, 

2015, p. 2). 

Conflicts between freight vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians 

generally occur at intersections; however, midblock conflicts can 

also occur and are typically due to loading activities. Through 

roadway design, conflicts can be mitigated and the behavior of all 

users can be made more predictable. Education of all road users 

can improve the understanding of how each mode operates on 

roadways.

FREIGHT INTERACTION

SAFETY

Through engineering, education, and enforcement, roadway 

designers and the freight industry should consider an approach 

to reduce the severity and likelihood of crashes. 

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

The design should provide a sense of comfort for vulnerable 

road users where freight vehicles are present and 

accommodate freight needs specific to each corridor.

COHERENCE

The path of travel for pedestrians and bicyclists should be 

clearly delineated for freight vehicles to recognize. 

PREDICTABILITY

The design should maximize predictability and reduce conflicts 

between vulnerable road users and freight vehicles.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

The design should support community health and livability 

goals while maintaining and growing the economy.

EXPERIMENTATION

Freight vehicles should consider innovative technologies that 

can alert drivers of potential conflicts with other roadway users.

Freight driver unable to see 

pedestrian or bicyclist. 

Bicyclist leaving 

facility to overtake 

a loading vehicle.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES
84 FREIGHT INTERACTION

MIRRORS, SIDEGUARDS, AND WARNING SYSTEMS

Mirrors and blind spot warning systems prevent 

collisions by decreasing the driver’s blind spots and 

alerting them to bicyclists or pedestrians in the blind 

spot. A 2007 National Transportation Safety Board 

(NTSB) study found that large trucks lacking right 

fender mirrors were disproportionately involved 

in serious injury and fatal collisions (NTSB Safety 

Recommendations 2014, p. 4).

COMMERCIAL LOADING AND UNLOADING

Truck loading operations typically involve pulling over to the 

side of the roadway. This may result in blocking a bike lane 

or crossing through a bike lane to access a loading zone. 

Dedicated commercial loading zones can save trucking 

companies time and money and improve air quality. Consider 

designating commercial loading zones where they will 

cause minimal conflict with bicycle facilities. This should be 

balanced with providing convenient dedicated loading zones. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Streets with heavy freight usage, high parking demand, 

and bike lanes benefit from dedicated commercial loading 

zones 1 after an intersection. Loading zones may help 

reduce obstruction of the bike lane and make deliveries 

easier for businesses. These zones can be striped and 

signed, or managed for off-peak deliveries. (NACTO Urban 

Street Design Guide 2013, p. 15) 

• Consider consolidating commercial loading zones to a 

single location on each block to reduce potential conflicts. 

• Consider the length of typical loading vehicles that use the 

space when determining the length of the loading zone. 

• The loading zone should be 8–10 feet wide. 

• Where on-street parking and separated bike lanes are 

provided, consider a 5-foot minimum access aisle 2

between the commercial loading zone and the bike lane. 

Vertical objects should be discontinued where an access 

aisle is provided. 

• A curb ramp 3 with a separated bike lane crosswalk can 

simplify loading and unloading activity. 

• Green colored pavement 4 can be used to notify freight 

operators of a potential conflict with a bicyclist. 

• Consider locating a commercial loading zone on an 

adjacent block or alley where a loading zone is desired 

but on-street parking is not present. A lateral shift of 

the separated bike lane 5 and the sidewalk should be 

considered as a last resort. 

DESIGN STRATEGIES

2

1

3

4

5

3

4

4

Sideguards mitigate collisions by keeping vulnerable 

road users from being struck by the truck’s rear 

wheels in a side-impact collision. The sideguards 

prevent a bicyclist or pedestrian from being swept 

under the truck and struck by the rear wheels. 

LOADING ZONE ADJACENT TO STANDARD BIKE LANE

LOADING ZONE ADJACENT TO SEPARATED BIKE LANE 

WITHOUT ON-STREET PARKING

LOADING ZONE ADJACENT TO SEPARATED BIKE LANE WITH 

ON-STREET PARKING
FREIGHT INTERACTION 85

EDUCATION

Education is an important component of reducing 

conflicts between freight and bicycles and 

pedestrians. Large vehicles need more room to make 

turning maneuvers than passenger vehicles and 

the rear wheels do not track along the same line as 

the front wheels. Educating bicyclists about truck 

movements and blind spots, as well as educating 

truck drivers about common bicycle and pedestrian 

movements, is a key component of sharing the road 

safely. 

INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Designers should consider mountable truck aprons where 

turning movements by large vehicles are common. Mountable 

aprons discourage smaller vehicles from making turns at high 

speeds while still allowing trucks to turn without entering the 

pedestrian zone or adjacent vehicle lanes. They help reduce 

off-tracking risks to pedestrians with visual disabilities. 

Additional strategies for accommodating large vehicles at 

intersections include setting back stop lines and allowing 

large vehicles to encroach into adjacent lanes when turning. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on Intersection 

Geometry.

SIGNAL PHASING

Signal phases can be used to separate or give a head start to 

bicycle and pedestrian movements from conflicting freight 

movements. Separate signal phases can be used where a 

primary freight route turns and a bicycle route continues 

straight, at intersections with a high number of freight and 

bicycle or pedestrian crashes, and at intersections with 

separated bike lanes. When using separate signal phases, 

the intersection must be designed so that tractor-trailer 

combinations can safely make a turn without encroaching on 

the bike lane, preferably with curb separation between the 

bike lane and the travel lane. To give a head start, a leading 

pedestrian or bicycle interval can be used to increase visibility 

and reduce conflicts. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Signalized Intersections.

SIGNS

Dynamic warning signs may be used to alert freight vehicles 

when bicyclists are present. Dynamic signs use a loop detector 

to detect a bicyclist. When a bicyclist is detected, the dynamic 

sign illuminates to alert any potential turning vehicles to yield 

to the bicyclist. Signs should comply with the 2009 MUTCD. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on Turning 

Vehicles.

The United States Department of Transportation 

(U.S. DOT) and its Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration held a pedestrian and bicycle 

safety assessment focusing on freight in Seattle 

assessment in Seattle, Washington on May 7, 2015. 

The purpose of the assessment was to identify 

issues and conflict points involving the movement of 

freight vehicles and bicyclists. Throughout the day, 

participants were able to ride in buses and trucks, 

learn about the operating characteristics of various 

roadways users, and share their experiences as 

bicyclists, bus drivers, and freight operators. 

A key theme in the assessment was user education. 

While separated bike lanes along roadways with heavy 

freight traffic are ideal, participants acknowledged 

that a cohesive network of such infrastructure would 

take many years to construct. In the meantime, 

participants agreed that education of all road users 

on the operational characteristics and needs of each 

mode is a key tool in reducing crashes between 

bicyclists, pedestrians, and heavy vehicles.

Participants also recognized that a variety of other 

components play a part including improvements 

in both equipment and infrastructure. Turning 

movements often create conflicts between freight 

vehicles and bicyclists. Equipment enhancements 

such as sideguards and audible messaging 

systems were presented to address this situation. 

Infrastructure improvements may also decrease the 

number and severity of conflicts between buses, 

freight vehicles, and bicyclists by eliminating conflicts 

where feasible and minimizing speed differentials. 

The use of bike signals to time-separate the two 

modes was discussed as an example infrastructure 

improvement. 

2015 SEATTLE PEDESTRIAN, BICYCLE, AND 

FREIGHT ASSESSMENT
86 FREIGHT INTERACTION

CASE STUDIES

In 2009–2010, the New York City (NYC) Department of 

Transportation implemented an Off-Hour Truck Delivery 

Pilot Program. Twenty participants shifted their delivery 

windows to between 7pm and 6am. Receivers had no 

major issues with the switch; some reported increased 

staff productivity because staff did not have to be 

available to receive deliveries while they were serving 

customers. Carriers reported more efficient operations, 

fewer parking tickets, and potential to reduce fleet size 

by balancing day and night operations. With the success, 

the program, now called NYC deliverEASE, has continued 

to grow where team members train participants on how to 

make quiet deliveries and use low noise technologies.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: Large Trucks. 2015.

Safety Recommendations, issued by National Transportation Safety Board to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, April 3, 2014. http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/h-14-001-007.pdf. 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. “Truck Side Guards Resource Page.” Last modified September 23, 2015. 

http://www.volpe.dot.gov/our-work/truck-side-guards-resource-page.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

Source: Jason Kuffer (Creative Commons)

Source: Kristopher Carter, City of Boston

OFF-HOUR DELIVERY PROGRAM

NEW YORK CITY, NY

A literature review performed by the Volpe National 

Transportation Systems Center found a 61-percent drop 

in bicyclist fatalities and 20-percent drop in pedestrian 

fatalities from side-impact truck collisions in the United 

Kingdom after sideguards were mandated (Truck Side 

Guards Resource Page 2015). In 2014, the City of Boston 

mandated sideguards for all city-contracted vehicles. 

Vehicles over 10,000 pounds and tractor-trailers over 

26,000 pounds combined must have sideguards, convex 

mirrors, cross-over mirrors (which eliminate the truck’s 

front blind spot), and blind-spot awareness decals. The 

improvements cost approximately $1,800 (2015) per 

vehicle.

TRUCK SIDEGUARDS

BOSTON, MA
87

Accessible pedestrian facilities improve the quality of life 

for those with mobility, visual, hearing, or other disabilities 

by reducing barriers to services, opportunities, and social 

activities. Pedestrian access routes, which provide continuous 

and clear pedestrian pathways, enhance mobility and encourage 

independence by increasing transportation choice. 

Nearly one in five adults under the age of 65 have difficulty 

traveling due to a disability, with difficulty walking cited as the 

most common problem (Committee on Disability in America 

2007, p. 522). Often the built environment is a primary reason 

for this difficulty because it has historically been designed for 

people who do not have a disability. Design details for surfaces, 

streetscape furniture, sidewalks, signals, street crossings, and 

transit stops may render pedestrian facilities inaccessible. As 

a result, pedestrians with disabilities may be forced to walk in 

the street or otherwise be placed in direct conflict with motor 

vehicles or bicycles. 

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits agencies receiving 

Federal financial assistance from discriminating on the basis of 

disability. Since 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

has required pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way to 

be accessible. Accessible street designs minimize multimodal 

conflicts by eliminating barriers for pedestrians, communicating 

street crossing information, and promoting predictable behavior 

for all roadway users.

ACCESSIBILITY

SAFETY

Designs should eliminate conflicts by maintaining an access 

route on pedestrian circulation paths, which includes 

sidewalks, curb ramps, street crossings, and connections to 

accessible facilities.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Designs should eliminate barriers for people with mobility, 

visual, hearing, or other disabilities.

COHERENCE

Accessible pedestrian routes must provide a continuous clear 

width free of obstructions and protrusions.

PREDICTABILITY

Designs should provide accessible elements with consistent 

characteristics and in a logical arrangement to communicate 

the pedestrian access route.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

Designs should accommodate pedestrians with disabilities in a 

manner that complements community character and supports 

community health, economic, and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Pedestrian access routes must meet Federal standards.

Accessible facilities 

eliminate barriers, allowing 

pedestrians to travel on the 

sidewalk and away from the 

roadway.

Accessible facilities guide 

pedestrians to safe and 

predictable crossing points, 

reducing their risk of being 

struck at intersections.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES
88 ACCESSIBILITY

Providing, maintaining, and connecting to pedestrian access 

routes is the central concept of the U.S. Access Board’s 2011 

Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public 

Right-of-Way (PROWAG). A pedestrian access route must 

provide a 4-foot minimum continuous clear width, a maximum 

grade consistent with the road grade, a maximum 2-percent 

cross slope, and a “firm, stable, and slip resistant” surface 

(PROWAG 2011, R302). Accessibility requirements greatly 

influence the design and construction strategies for sidewalks, 

street crossings, curb ramps, signals, street furniture, transit 

stations, on-street parking, loading zones, shared use paths, 

and more. For more information on the relationship between 

the current enforceable ADA Standards and PROWAG, see p. 6.

At the network level, connecting pedestrian access routes 

reduces conflicts by providing access across barriers. This 

enables safe and comfortable walking trips from beginning 

to end for pedestrians of all abilities. For more information, 

refer to the design topic on Network Connectivity for networklevel design strategies including small blocks, road diets, safe 

crossings, and gap connectivity.

SIDEWALKS

Sidewalks comprise the bulk of pedestrian access routes. 

They should provide a continuous circulation path and connect 

pedestrians to accessible elements, spaces, and facilities. 1

Where narrower than 5 feet, a 5-by 5-foot minimum passing 

space is required at 200-foot maximum intervals (PROWAG 

2011, R302.4). To increase maneuverability, additional space 

should be provided at “turns or changes in direction, transit 

stops, recesses and alcoves, building entrances, and along 

curved or angled routes, particularly where the grade exceeds 

5 percent” (PROWAG 2011, Advisory R302.3).

Streetscape furniture cannot be placed within the pedestrian 

access route (i.e., pedestrian through zone) and any nearby 

obstructions in the frontage and street furniture zones should 

be detectable by cane. 2 For more information on sidewalk 

zones, refer to the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide 2013, p. 

38. Protruding objects, such as wall- or pole-mounted items, 

must be limited because they can be difficult to detect and 

avoid (PROWAG 2011, R402).

STREET CROSSINGS

Street crossings maintain the pedestrian access route across 

travel lanes at intersections. A variety of striping may be used 

to denote the pedestrian crossing (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 3B.18). 

High-visibility ladder style crosswalks with longitudinal lines 

are recommended. 3

Ensure that adequate roadway sight distance is provided in 

advance of the pedestrian crossing to enhance the visibility for 

approaching motorists and bicyclists. As motor vehicle speeds 

increase, additional sight distance should be provided. 

Consider additional treatments at intersections that minimize 

multimodal conflicts by reducing motorist turning speeds 

and improving motorist yielding rates. Curb extensions 4

shorten crossing distances, prevent illegal stopping/parking 

DESIGN STRATEGIES

in close proximity of the crosswalk, and further increase 

visibility of pedestrians to motorists, particularly on roadways 

with on-street parking. Raised crossings 5 enhance visibility 

and provide an additional traffic calming benefit to encourage 

motorist yielding behavior. Crossing islands 6 break up 

long crossings and help pedestrians manage directional 

conflicts. For more information, refer to the design topics on 

Traffic Calming and Design Speed and Enhanced Crossing 

Treatments.

CURB RAMPS

Curb ramps facilitate pedestrian access between sidewalks 

and street crossings, and between sidewalks and accessible 

on-street parking. Curb ramps may be perpendicular or parallel 

to the pedestrian access route, or a combination of both, with 

a maximum running slope of 8.3 percent. PROWAG allows 

for different maximum cross slopes depending on the traffic 

control in place at the crossing (2011, R302.6). Ramps should 

align with pedestrian crossings; the use of apex curb ramps 

(i.e., diagonal ramps) should be a last resort, as these ramps 

direct pedestrians into the intersection and away from the 

crosswalk. 

Each curb ramp must include a landing/turning space 7 for 

wheelchair maneuverability and a detectable warning surface 

8 to alert pedestrians with a visual disability that they are 

entering or exiting the roadway. Detectable warning surfaces 

must include truncated domes to provide tactile feedback and 

must exhibit visual contrast with adjacent surfaces (e.g., light 

on dark or dark on light). Place detectable warning surfaces at 

the back of the curb, unless otherwise specified by PROWAG 

(2011, R305.2). Detectable warning surfaces are also needed 

at blended transitions (i.e., crossings with a running slope less 

than 5 percent) raised crossings, and at pedestrian crossing 

islands. 9

SIGNALS

At signalized intersections, accessible pedestrian signals 

communicate the location of the pedestrian pushbutton and 

the direction and timing of WALK and DON’T WALK intervals 

in a non-visual format. 10 The MUTCD defines non-visual as 

one or more “audible tones, speech messages, and/or vibrating 

surfaces” (2009, Sec. 4E.09), whereas PROWAG defines nonvisual as both “audible tones and vibrotactile surfaces” (2011, 

R209). Designers should separate pedestrian pushbuttons by 

at least 10 feet 11 and locate each near a level landing or a 

blended transition to “make it obvious which pushbutton is 

associated with each crosswalk” (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4E.08). 

Consider slower walking speeds (less than 3.5 feet per second) 

when determining pedestrian clearance times to accommodate 

the elderly and pedestrians with disabilities (MUTCD 2009, 

Sec. 4E.06). Signal timing should allow pedestrians to cross 

both sides of the street during a single cycle. Designers should 

place a pushbutton at pedestrian crossing islands for slower 

moving pedestrians to call the signal if they cannot cross the 

street in a single cycle. 12
ACCESSIBILITY 89

SURFACE TREATMENTS MAINTENANCE

Proper maintenance of pedestrian access routes is 

essential to keeping pedestrians on the sidewalk and 

out of the roadway. The clear width should remain 

free and clear of obstructions, including signs, café 

seating, snow, ice, debris, and other clutter. Inspect 

pushbutton responsiveness and pedestrian signal 

indications on a routine schedule to avoid a lapse in 

functionality. Public reporting applications can further 

help identify maintenance needs. 

PROWAG requires planar and smooth pedestrian access 

route surfaces. Uneven unit pavers, rough bricks, and 

hand-tooled concrete control joints cause uncomfortable 

or even painful vibrations for people using wheeled 

mobility devices. Minimize vertical discontinuities 

between unit pavers, vault frames, gratings, and where 

materials intersect (refer to PROWAG 2011, R302.7, for 

specifications for vertical discontinuities and horizontal 

openings). Saw-cut concrete control joints and wire-cut 

bricks help reduce vibrations. 

2

1

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

9

11

10

12
90 ACCESSIBILITY

CASE STUDIES

The City of Berkeley is regarded as one of the most accessible 

cities in the U.S. for its early and continued efforts to provide 

accessible public rights-of-way. It has more than 30 years 

of experience incorporating accessible elements into street 

design, starting several years before the introduction of 

national ADA legislation. Both its Disability Compliance 

Program (BDCP) within Public Works and its Commission 

on Disability ensure a culture of accessibility within City 

government. The City retrofits approximately 100 existing 

curb ramps per year to contemporary design standards, and 

continues to install accessible elements at locations with 

identified safety and accessibility deficiencies. Its most recent 

2010 Pedestrian Master Plan recommends accessible facilities 

training for all Public Works and Planning staff, a system to 

track ongoing efforts, and expanded oversight for the BDCP. 

Oregon State University (OSU) is striving to create a universally 

accessible campus through a holistic approach to barrier 

removal using the 2010 ADA Standards and best practice 

performance standards. OSU’s plan (considered a “draft” 

document because the campus is always changing) identified 

five key objectives, including identifying an Accessible Travel 

Grid (ATG) in collaboration with the community and the OSU 

Accessibility Committee. The ATG is a pedestrian access 

route that will connect all campus facilities with at least one 

accessible access point. Focusing on the ATG allowed OSU to 

initially prioritize 1,134 barriers for resolution (out of 5,029 total 

barriers identified in the exterior environment), significantly 

reducing the implementation timeframe and overall cost of 

achieving an interconnected campus. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 2011.

Committee on Disability in America. The Future of Disability in America, Part G: Transportation Patterns and Problems of 

People with Disabilities. 2007. 

Federal Highway Administration. “Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (504).” 

Last modified December 1, 2015. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/ada.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Transportation Research Board. “Web-Only Document 117A: Accessible Pedestrian Signals: A Guide to Best Practices.” 

Submitted June 2007. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w117a.pdf

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

Office of Equity and Inclusion

COMPREHENSIVE ACCESSIBILITY PLAN

FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT (DRAFT)

SUMMER 2013

Comprehensive Accessibility Plan Page | 1

FOR MORE INFORMATION

BERKELEY 2010 PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN

BERKELEY, CA

OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY ACCESSIBILITY PLAN

CORVALLIS, OR
91

Motor vehicles making turns at intersections can be a hazard 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. Data from the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration indicate that 20 percent of fatal 

pedestrian crashes and 34 percent of fatal bicyclist crashes occur 

at intersections, predominantly in urban areas (Traffic Safety Facts: 

Pedestrians, 2015, p. 2; Traffic Safety Facts: Bicyclists and Other 

Cyclists, 2015, p. 2). In a 2015 study, the City of Seattle found that 

the most significant crash type at both signalized and unsignalized 

intersections was a turning motorist crossing the path of a through 

bicyclist or pedestrian. Left-turning motorists accounted for 19 

percent of bicyclist crashes and 31 percent of pedestrian crashes 

at all intersection types. Right-turning motorists accounted for 15 

percent of bicyclist crashes and 17 percent of pedestrian crashes at 

all intersection types.

Research has found that left-turning motorists on two-way streets 

are focused primarily on finding gaps in oncoming traffic, and a high 

percentage of motorists are not looking for crossing pedestrians 

or bicyclists. Scanning and awareness becomes more difficult for 

motorists on roadways with higher speeds and multiple travel lanes. 

Generally, right-turning motorists have an easier time scanning for 

bicyclists or pedestrians since they are less focused on finding gaps 

in traffic. Conflicts often result from failure to yield or bicyclists 

approaching from the rear in a driver’s blindspot. 

Turning movement conflicts may be addressed through designs 

that reduce motor vehicle speeds, minimize speed differentials 

at conflict points, maximize visibility and predictability, raise 

awareness, and separate movements through time and space.

TURNING VEHICLES

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

SAFETY

The design should proactively address known safety issues 

caused by turning vehicles.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Intersections should be designed to be accessible for all users 

and maximize comfort to the greatest extent practicable.

COHERENCE

Intersections should provide adequate sight distance between 

turning vehicles and vulnerable road users.

PREDICTABILITY

The design should provide clear right-of-way to increase 

predictable behavior.

CONTEXT SENSITIVITY

The design should incorporate and support community 

resources, the natural environment, and adjacent land uses.

EXPERIMENTATION

Intersections should use innovative solutions to increase sight 

distance and decrease conflicts between turning vehicles and 

vulnerable road users.

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES

Right-turning vehicles 

crossing through bicyclists 

or pedestrians is known as a 

“right hook” crash type.

“Left hooks” are similar, where 

left-turning vehicles come into 

conflict with opposing traffic 

traveling straight. 
92 TURNING VEHICLES

EDUCATION

Education campaigns can help to inform users about 

where to travel to be most visible to other users, where 

to expect other users to be traveling, and the blind spots 

of different users. Best practices include educational 

programs through Safe Routes to School, bicycle and 

pedestrian curriculum in driver’s education and licensing 

tests, and educational materials such as signs and fliers 

sent to residents or available at public events.

DESIGN STRATEGIES

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

Traffic signals may be installed at locations where the 

continual flow of vehicles on one roadway results in excessive 

delay or hazard to crossing vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. 

The decision to install a signal should be based on an 

engineering study which considers the warrants outlined in 

the MUTCD. Accessible pedestrian signals with countdown 

timers should be provided at signalized intersections to inform 

pedestrians when they may enter the roadway and how much 

time remains for their crossing (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 4E.07). 

A minimum pedestrian walk interval of 10 seconds should 

be provided except in rare circumstances where pedestrian 

volume is negligible (ITE Traffic Control Devices Handbook 

2009, p. 381). For more information on accessible pedestrian 

signals, see the design topic on Accessibility.

Reducing left and right hooks can be achieved through partially 

or fully separating vehicle turning movements from conflicting 

pedestrian or bicycle movements. 1 Partially separated 

movements are called leading intervals. A leading interval 

increases visibility and allows pedestrians or bicyclists to 

assert their right-of-way by providing a head start into the 

intersection before turning vehicles. Leading intervals are 

typically a minimum of 3–8 seconds in advance of the green 

phase for turning motor vehicles. Accessible pedestrian 

signals should be considered when adding leading intervals. 

Fully separated movements may require longer signal cycle 

lengths, which may result in reduced user compliance with 

signal indications and therefore increased potential for 

conflict. Cycle lengths should be minimized to reduce delay 

and maximize compliance. Designers should consider partially 

or fully separating bicycle movements from motor vehicles. 

At locations where conflicts are high and the provision of 

separate phases is not feasible or desirable, restricting 

vehicular turns should be considered when alternative motor 

vehicle routes are available. 2 For more information, refer to 

the design topic on Signalized Intersections.

CROSSINGS

Bicycle and pedestrian crossings should be separate unless 

designated as a shared use path crossing. 3 A 6-foot 

minimum crossing island can be added to provide a refuge 

for pedestrians and to slow left-turning vehicle speeds. 4

Consider wider crossing islands to accommodate bicycles with 

trailers, which cumulatively measure at least 9.75 feet long 

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 3-4). 

PAVEMENT MARKINGS

Pavement markings improve the predictability of movements 

and raise awareness of potential conflicts. For bicyclists, this 

may be accomplished with dotted bicycle lane lines on an 

intersection approach to indicate a motorist merge area 5 , 

or dotted extension lines through the intersection. The dotted 

lines are typically 6 inches or wider and could be supplemented 

with green colored pavement to improve visibility. 6 Twostage turn boxes are used to simplify turning for bicyclists. 

They may require FHWA approval. 7 For pedestrians, highvisibility ladder-style crosswalks maximize visibility of the 

crossing (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 3B.18). 8

SEPARATED BIKE LANES

Providing additional separation between bicyclists and 

motorists can improve the visibility of bicyclists to turning 

motorists. 9 For more information, refer to the design topic 

on Separated Bike Lanes at Intersections.

SIGNS

The TURNING VEHICLES YIELD TO (or STOP FOR) PEDESTRIAN 

(R10-15) sign can be installed at intersections to alert 

motorists of their requirement to yield or stop for pedestrians 

or bicyclists within the crossing. In cases where motorists 

need to be alert to a potential conflict with pedestrians 

and bicyclists, the sign can be modified to include both a 

pedestrian and bicycle symbol. The sign can be located at 

the near- or far-side of the intersection. Engineering judgment 

should be used to determine a location that is conspicuous to 

the turning driver. 10 (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 2B.53.)

INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Intersection geometry has a significant impact on the safety of 

pedestrians and bicyclists. Ideal intersection geometry should 

induce yielding by slowing turning vehicles to minimize speed 

differentials at conflict points. Techniques include installing 

curb extensions, installing raised crossings, or reducing the 

curb radii. 11 Consider roundabouts as an alternative to 

traffic signals and at intersections with complicated geometry. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on Intersection 

Geometry and NCHRP Report 672.

Source: Florida Department of Transportation District Two
TURNING VEHICLES 93

ACCESS MANAGEMENT FREIGHT

Access management techniques can be applied to reduce 

the frequency of turning movement conflicts caused by 

driveways or streets. Typical strategies include driveway 

consolidation, continuous medians, directional islands to 

restrict left turns, and driveway or street closures. Access 

management techniques may be particularly beneficial to 

reduce crashes caused by left turning motorists. Street 

sections with limited driveway openings maximize comfort 

and safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Freight vehicles range in size and require large 

turning radii. Freight vehicles also have blind spots 

creating challenges for vulnerable road users. For 

more information, refer to the design topic on Freight 

Interaction.

2

R3-2

R10-15

11

8 6

4

3

9

1

5 7

10
94 TURNING VEHICLES

CASE STUDIES

In 2015, at the intersection of Massachusetts Avenue and 

Beacon Street in Boston, a through bicyclist was struck 

and killed by a right turning truck. As part of their Vision 

Zero Initiative to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities, the 

City of Boston quickly implemented short-term intersection 

improvements. By obtaining the latest three years of crash 

data, the City was able to respond with countermeasures 

to reduce crash patterns at the intersection. Improvements 

included removing a right turn lane to provide a separated bike 

lane, optimizing signal timings, providing leading pedestrian 

intervals, extending bicycle lanes through the intersection 

with high visibility green-colored pavement markings, adding 

a bicycle box, and adding signs for motorists to yield to 

pedestrians. The City will continue to monitor the intersection 

and plans to develop long-term recommendations to improve 

safety along the entire corridor.

Seattle is undertaking a robust collision and roadway 

data analysis to identify the factors that contribute most 

significantly to pedestrian and bicycle collisions. The findings 

of this analysis are anticipated to help Seattle proactively 

address safety issues through systemic improvements 

and uniform street design approaches. Preliminary results 

indicate that relatively few combinations of driver and 

bicyclist or pedestrian actions account for most crashes. 

The most prevalent—and most likely to be severe—crash 

type for bicyclists occurred between a bicyclist riding with 

traffic and a left-turning driver. The most prevalent and severe 

pedestrian crash type was when a pedestrian crossing a 

signalized intersection was hit by a driver turning left. The City 

is developing countermeasures for improvements, along with a 

tool to analyze future collision data for key factors of interest.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. NCHRP Report 672. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. 2010. 

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Traffic Control Devices Handbook. 2009.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: Bicyclists and Other Cyclists. 2015.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: Pedestrians. 2015.

BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ANALYSIS

SEATTLE, WA

MASSACHUSETTS AVENUE AT BEACON STREET

BOSTON, MA
95

Separated bike lanes reduce stressful interactions between 

people bicycling and driving by physically separating these users 

with a horizontal buffer and vertical element. Research shows 

that they encourage more bicycling, enhance safety for all road 

users, and are more comfortable for bicyclists and motorists 

compared to standard bike lanes and shared lanes. 

Bicyclists are inherently vulnerable as they have considerably 

less mass and travel at slower speeds than motorists. This 

increases the likelihood of serious injury or death in the event 

of a collision with a motor vehicle. Most conflicts occur at 

intersections where turning motorists must merge within or turn 

across a bicyclist’s path of travel. Intersection geometry has an 

influence on the turning speed of a motorist and the approach 

geometry has an influence on a motorist’s merging speed across 

a bicyclist’s path. 

At intersections, geometric and signalization strategies 

for separated bike lanes can reduce conflict areas, clearly 

communicate the right-of-way for all users, and heighten visibility 

and lower speeds at crossings. Continuous separated bike lanes 

along corridors and through intersections serve a primary role in 

the design of low-stress bicycle networks that appeal to people 

of all ages and bicycling abilities.

SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS

SAFETY

Minimize bicyclist exposure to motor vehicles, decrease the 

speed differential at conflict points, and provide adequate 

sight distance for all roadway users.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Preserve the separated bike lane up to the cross street to 

create an environment that appeals to bicyclists of all ages and 

abilities.

COHERENCE

Clearly delineate the path of travel at conflict points.

PREDICTABILITY

Design pavement markings, signs, geometric elements, and 

signal phasing strategies to encourage predictable behaviors.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

Consider community character and aesthetics when selecting 

separated bike lane elements.

EXPERIMENTATION

Utilize innovative solutions such as the provision of bicycle 

signals for protected-phase crossings or truck aprons to slow 

turning vehicles.

Bicyclists 

traveling in 

shared lanes or 

standard bike 

lanes are exposed 

to more potential 

conflicts with 

motor vehicles at 

intersections.

Vehicle Movement

Bicycle Movement

Potential

Conflict Zone

Separated

Bike Lane

Standard

Bike Lane

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND CONFLICT ZONES
6

96 SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS

SIGHT DISTANCE SIGNALS

For sight distance at intersections and driveways, refer 

to the AASHTO Green Book 2011. Restrict parking and 

vertical objects near the intersection by at least 20 feet 

to provide a clear approach area (FHWA Separated Bike 

Lane Guide 2015, p. 90). Higher design turning speeds 

require additional clear area for motorists to identify and 

react to potential conflicts.

Separated bike lanes are offset from motor vehicle 

traffic, therefore bicycle signals should be considered 

to provide consistent, predictable, and easy to 

understand guidance for bicyclists at signalized 

locations. Bicycle signals will be necessary at 

locations where protected or leading bicycle phases 

are provided. For more information on interval 

adjustments and signal phasing and coordination, 

refer to FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, pp. 

115–121. 

PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS

Protected intersections preserve the separated bike lane up to 

and through intersections. By maintaining physical separation, 

they eliminate shared spaces with turning and merging 

vehicles, limiting bicyclist exposure to a single point where the 

motorist turns across the bike lane and adjacent pedestrian 

crossing. The speed of the conflict is controlled through 

geometric design and sight distance is improved by recessing 

the crossings. Protected intersections are compatible with 

one- and two-way separated bike lanes; however, contraflow 

bicycle movements may require signal-phase separation in 

some situations.

CONSIDERATIONS

• The corner island protects bicyclists by controlling the speed of right-turning 

motor vehicles. It also allows the crossing to be located at a narrower part of 

the cross street, minimizing exposure to turning traffic. 1 Designers should 

consider restricting right turns on red at protected intersections to reduce vehicle 

encroachment into the crossings.

• Forward bicycle queuing areas allow stopped bicyclists to wait in direct line of 

sight of motorists and allow bicyclists to enter the intersection before turning 

motorists. They should be at least 6 feet long to fit a typical bicycle. Enlarging the 

corner island can create additional queuing space for bicyclists. 2

• Mountable truck aprons can be used to slow turning vehicles while accommodating 

large vehicles. 3 For more information, refer to the design topic on Intersection 

Geometry. 

• A recessed crossing creates motor vehicle yielding space and allows motorists 

to see pedestrians and bicyclists without relying on mirrors. Research shows 

that providing a bicycle crossing offset from the parallel roadway by 6- to 16.5 

feet provides the greatest safety benefit. Enlarging the corner island can further 

increase the offset to the cross street and create additional yielding space for a 

motor vehicle. 4 (Schepers 2011, pp. 853–861)

• Pedestrian crossing islands reduce crossing distances, allow pedestrians to 

manage bicycle and motor vehicle conflicts separately, and discourage pedestrians 

from queuing in the bike lane. They must provide at least 6 feet between the bike 

lane and the travel lane and include detectable warning surfaces. 5

• Delineator islands separate bicycle and pedestrian crossings and help guide 

pedestrians to the crossing island and crosswalk. 6

2

1

DESIGN STRATEGIES

5

4

6’ min.

6’–16.5’

3
SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS 97

MARKINGS, SIGNS, & MAINTENANCE INTERSECTION GEOMETRY

Roadway geometry can assist in reducing conflicts at 

intersections, especially with separated bike lanes. 

For more information, refer to the design topic on

Intersection Geometry.

Pavement markings and signs can be used to alert 

motorists of potential conflicts. For more information, 

refer to the design topic on Turning Vehicles.

Providing a safe and rideable surface through all seasons 

can reduce conflicts by providing an exclusive space 

for bicyclists year-round. Designers should consider 

compatibility with maintenance activities and equipment 

when designing separated bike lanes. For more 

information see FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, 

pp. 64–65.

MIXING ZONES

A mixing zone requires turning motor vehicles to merge into 

the separated bike lane at a defined location in advance of an 

intersection. Unlike a standard bike lane where a motorist can 

merge across at any point, a mixing zone design limits bicyclist 

exposure to motor vehicles by defining a limited merge area for 

the turning motor vehicle. They are compatible with one-way 

separated bike lanes only.

CONSIDERATIONS

• Mixing zones should be limited to constrained locations 

where maintaining physical separation is infeasible with 

a maximum of 50–150 turning motor vehicles in the peak 

hour (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, p. 107). 

Consider signal separation at constrained locations with 

higher turning volumes. 

• Bike lanes should be continuous through the mixing zone 

where space permits 7 , otherwise shared lane markings 

should be used. 

• Designers should consider a green bike lane or shared lane 

markings 8 for conflict areas to highlight the conflict 

point and raise awareness of bicyclists. 

• Designers should provide a buffer 9 with a vertical 

element to separate the turn lane from through lanes, where 

space permits (FHWA Separated Bike Lane Guide 2015, p. 

83). 

• Motor vehicle speeds should be reduced at the merge point 

to 20 mi/h or less through the use of reduced taper lengths. 

10

• The length of the mixing zone should be minimized to 

60–100 11 feet to maximize comfort for bicyclists and to 

minimize speed differential with motorists. 

• Where parking is present, it may be necessary to restrict 

some parking in advance of the merge point 12 to increase 

approach sight distance. 

8

7

9

11

10

delineator 

posts

12
98 SEPARATED BIKE LANES AT INTERSECTIONS

CASE STUDIES

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

(MassDOT) Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide 

presents strategies and criteria for the planning, design, and 

maintenance of separated bike lanes. MassDOT recognizes 

the Guide as a critical tool in support of its Complete 

Streets approach to project development and its goal to 

provide healthy transportation options. The Guide provides 

clarification on when separated bike lanes are appropriate 

and identifies typical separation strategies and configurations 

while addressing key design criteria for reducing conflicts 

between all modes. The document provides design guidance 

for intersections, signalization, transit stops, loading zones, 

on-street parking, drainage, stormwater management, and 

landscaping, among others. Notably, it introduces the first set 

of guidelines for protected intersections, bringing international 

best practice to the U.S.

In August 2015, Davis, CA completed the construction of a 

new intersection design for bicyclists at Covell Boulevard and 

J Street. The intersection design, referred to as a protected 

intersection, created corner islands for bicyclists to maneuver 

around the intersection with physical separation from 

motorists. The intersection is reported to be functioning well 

with the various roadway users able to follow their path without 

explanation. The design reduced the crossing distances for 

bicyclists and pedestrians and improved visibility between 

turning vehicles with bicyclists and pedestrians.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 2011. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. 

Federal Highway Administration. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. 2015.

Massachusetts Department of Transportation. Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide. 2015.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Bikeway Design Guide. 2014.

Schepers et al. “Road factors and bicycle—motor vehicle crashes at unsignalized priority intersections.” Accident Analysis & 

Prevention. Volume 43, Issue 2, 2011. 

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

Source: Massachusetts Department of Transportation

FOR MORE INFORMATION

PROTECTED INTERSECTION

DAVIS, CA

SEPARATED BIKE LANE PLANNING & DESIGN GUIDE

MASSACHUSETTS
99

Whether traveling by foot, wheelchair, bicycle, skateboard, 

or other ways, well-designed shared use paths can provide 

direct and comfortable routes to places of employment, 

recreation, education, and other destinations. They can 

enhance the efficiency of transit systems by making transit 

stops more accessible. They can also provide a way to 

engage in physical activity.

As paths attract a wide range of user types, multimodal 

conflicts can occur. Conflicts on shared use paths most 

often derive from 1) high volumes of users, 2) path users 

traveling at different speeds, 3) path users overtaking other 

users, 4) sharp curves, 5) vertical objects near the path, and 

6) surface defects that effectively narrow the usable width.

Increasing use of paths should be expected over time 

as more people become aware of them and walking and 

bicycling rates grow. The design of a path should follow best 

practices and industry standards and consider future growth 

patterns. 

Through careful planning and design, shared use paths can 

be built to reduce conflicts between users of different types 

and speeds for current and future path volumes.

SHARED USE PATHS

Insufficient path width 

can contribute to 

crashes associated 

with overtaking and 

passing maneuvers.

Insufficient path 

width can contribute 

to crashes with 

objects adjacent to 

path.

Surface defects 

can cause 

bicyclists to 

become unstable 

or lose control.

SAFETY

The path width should be designed to accommodate the peak 

volume of users with proper maintenance to ensure the path is 

usable throughout the year.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Separation of bicyclists and pedestrians should be considered 

where high volumes of pedestrians are anticipated. 

COHERENCE

It should be clear to each mode where and how they are to use 

the path. 

PREDICTABILITY

The design should encourage predictable behaviors of path 

users throughout and clearly identify where and when users 

are intended to be separated.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

The path should support the natural environment, adjacent 

land uses, community health, economic, and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Path lighting, user education, maintenance operations, and 

segregation techniques may be warranted to address conflicts. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES
100 SHARED USE PATHS

DESIGN STRATEGIES

MINIMUM PATH WIDTH 

LIMITS PASSING

PATH WIDTH FOR

ONE-WAY PASSING

PATH WIDTH FOR 

TWO-WAY PASSING

PATH WIDTH

Path width should be determined based on three main 

characteristics: the number of users, the types of users, and 

the differences in their speeds. For example, a path that is 

used by higher-speed bicyclists and children walking to school 

may experience conflicts due to their differences in speeds. By 

widening the path to provide space to accommodate passing 

movements, conflicts can be reduced. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Design path widths based on anticipated user types, 

speeds, and volumes. 

• Use the FHWA Shared Use Path Level of Service 

Calculator, which recommends path widths based on the 

predicted number and types of path users. 

• A minimum path width of 10 feet is recommended. A width 

of 8 feet may be used where path volumes are expected to 

be low and predominantly one user type. 1

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-3)

• Depending on path volume and user types, consider a 

path width of 11 feet to allow one person to overtake 

another while avoiding a path user traveling in the opposite 

direction. 2 (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-3)

• Wider pathways are recommended in areas with higher user 

volumes and where a high percentage of pedestrians are 

expected. 3 (AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-3)

• In urban areas where high use is anticipated, the desired 

path width is a minimum of 14 feet.

2

1

3

Reminding users of proper path etiquette, such as 

announcing when passing someone, may further assist in 

reducing conflicts between users. Strategies may include 

additional signs such as etiquette reminders, providing the 

path rules on maps, and conducting outreach campaigns 

to path users.

EDUCATION AND ETIQUETTE
SHARED USE PATHS 101

CLEARANCES/SHOULDERS

On hard surface paths (asphalt or concrete), it can be useful 

to include soft surface parallel paths (crushed stone), which 

are preferred by some users, such as runners. 4 When 

including parallel running paths, be sure to consider clearance 

recommendations as highlighted below.

Path clearances are an important element in path design and 

reducing user conflicts. Vertical objects close to the path edge 

risk endangering users and reducing the comfortable usable 

width of the path. 5 Along the path, vertical objects should 

be set back at least two feet from the edge of the path. Path 

shoulders may also reduce conflicts by providing space for 

users who step off the path to rest, allow users to pass one 

another, or offer a viewing area at scenic vistas (AASHTO Bike 

Guide 2012, p. 5-5). 

SEPARATION

A path may benefit from the separation of users by user speed, 

type, or direction. Common separators include line markings 

6 , pavement variations, and landscaping. 7 Separation by 

user type and speed is typically accomplished by separating 

bicyclists and pedestrians. When separating users by speed, 

consider the path width and paving material preferred by each 

user. A minimum pedestrian path of 6 feet is recommended to 

allow pedestrians to walk side-by-side and to allow passing.

TURNING MOVEMENTS

Designing paths with sharp turns can also increase conflicts. 

Sharp turns (typically less than a 30-foot radius) lead users to 

encroach on other users’ path of travel, increasing the potential 

for conflicts. If a larger radius is not possible, the path should 

be widened at turn locations to minimize conflicts.

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, p. 5-14)

INTERSECTIONS

Additional shared use path conflicts occur where paths and 

roadways intersect. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Midblock Path Intersections.

SHARED USE PATH

MARKING SEPARATION

SHARED USE PATH 

PHYSICAL SEPARATION

CLEARANCES/

SHOULDERS

6

7

4

5

LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE

Lighting increases the transportation utility of paths, 

reduces risk of falls and crashes, and improves users’ 

personal security. Paths used for transportation purposes 

should be open and lit at all times. 

A smooth path surface is essential to year-round path 

user safety. Routine and seasonal maintenance should be 

performed to eliminate uneven and slippery surfaces due 

to tree roots, potholes, ponding, snow, and ice. Maintain 

sight lines along the path and at intersections by routinely 

trimming vegetation. 
102 SHARED USE PATHS

CASE STUDIES

SEPARATED PATHS

PINELLAS TRAIL, FL

The Midtown Greenway is a 5.7-mile separated trail in the heart 

of Minneapolis. The trail runs east-west on a former sunken 

railroad corridor, providing a direct and uninterrupted path 

for bicyclists to traverse the city. The majority of the trail is 

below grade, passing underneath bridges and allowing users 

a traffic-free route. The Greenway features two one-way bike 

lanes and one two-way walking path. A dashed yellow line 

separates the two bike lanes, allowing passing for bicyclists. A 

solid white line separates the walking path from the bike lanes. 

In some areas, the paths narrow due to space constrictions. 

The Greenway is well-lit at night, and is open 24 hours per day. 

Several thousand trail users enjoy the Greenway every day. 

During the winter, the Greenway is cleared of snow and ice.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009.

Federal Highway Administration. “Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator.” Last modified April 4, 2012. https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/05138

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way: Shared Use Paths. 2013.

Source: Pinellas Trail, Inc.

MARKED SEPARATION

MINNEAPOLIS, MN

The 47-mile Pinellas Trail in Pinellas County, FL includes 

separate paths for users where space exists within the former 

railroad right-of-way. One pathway is wider and a hard surface. 

The other pathway is narrower and predominately crushed 

stone. Of the 70,000 monthly users, people on bicycles 

typically use the hard surface trail while people walking use the 

crushed stone, decreasing conflicts along the path. However, 

groups of users, whether pedestrians or bicyclists, typically 

prefer the wider path as it allows socializing. In addition, some 

pedestrians prefer hard surfaces for walking. Separated paths 

can mitigate user conflicts, but it is important to recognize the 

unique needs of each trail user type. 
103

People of all ages and abilities engage in walking, bicycling, and 

other activities on shared use paths. Most paths cross roadways 

at some point, and these locations have the potential to be the 

most challenging locations for path users. 

When paths cross roadways midblock, conflicts between path 

users and roadway users may arise. Roadway users include 

motorists as well as people bicycling and walking along the 

road. Much like typical roadway intersections, midblock path 

and roadway intersections should be designed with sound 

intersection design principles. 

Where inappropriate midblock roadway crossing treatments are 

applied along shared use paths, path and roadway users may be 

less likely to comply with traffic controls. For example, the use 

of stop control where sight lines are adequate may result in noncompliance, when yield control would be more appropriate and 

match user behavior more closely.

Other potential conflicts may occur where paths intersect 

roadways at angles, creating challenging sight lines between 

path and roadway users. Intersection angles should be as close 

as possible to 90 degrees, providing adequate stopping distances 

and sight lines for all users. 

By designing path and roadway intersections with these 

principles in mind, many conflicts can be minimized or avoided.

MIDBLOCK PATH INTERSECTIONS

SAFETY

Midblock path intersections should be designed to reduce the 

likelihood and severity of crashes between path users and 

between path users and motor vehicles.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

The intersection should be comfortable for path users of all ages 

and abilities.

COHERENCE

It should be clear to each mode where and how they are to 

navigate the intersection.

PREDICTABILITY

The design should be easy-to-understand through predictable 

behaviors and clear right-of-way assignments.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

The design should support the natural environment, community 

health, and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Midblock path intersection traffic controls should be appropriate 

based on the intersection conditions, path volumes, and roadway 

volumes.

Poorly 

designed path 

and roadway 

intersections 

can contribute 

to crashes.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES
104 MIDBLOCK PATH INTERSECTIONS

An initial assessment of the crossing location should include 

reviewing the roadway characteristics such as number of lanes, 

vehicular speeds and volumes, and sight lines. If conditions 

are extremely challenging for a path crossing, consider adding 

features to facilitate the crossing such as signalization, realigning the path, or providing grade separation.

This design topic addresses paths crossing roadways 

midblock. These strategies can be applied to similar 

midblock intersections near schools, transit stations, and 

at other high pedestrian desire lines. For more information, 

refer to the design topics on Network Connectivity, School 

Access, Multimodal Access to Existing Transit Stations, and 

Multimodal Access to New Transit Stations.

PRIORITY AND CONTROL ASSIGNMENTS

Intersection controls often stop path users, even when 

stopping might be unnecessary or inappropriate. The 

proliferation of stop signs on paths has led to a lack of 

compliance by path users in many communities and may 

actually diminish safety if ignored where truly needed. 

Therefore, the least restrictive control that is effective should 

be used (MUTCD 2009, Sec. 2B.06). For example, the MUTCD

recommends that “STOP signs should not be used where 

YIELD signs would be acceptable” (2009, Sec. 9B.03). 

Yield controls may be most appropriate when sight lines are 

adequate to assess the crossing facility and users may slow or 

stop to avoid a conflict. Yield control can allow path users to 

maintain momentum and may result in better compliance. 

To assess which crossing approach (the path or the roadway) 

should have priority, examine relative volumes and facility 

hierarchy in the transportation network to determine which 

approach should be made to yield or stop.

When priority is assigned, the least restrictive control that is 

appropriate should be placed on the lower priority approaches. 

The MUTCD provides the following guidance on control devices: 

“When placement of STOP or YIELD signs is considered, priority 

at a shared use path and roadway intersection should be 

assigned with consideration of the following: 

• Relative speeds of shared use path and roadway users,

• Relative volumes of shared use path and roadway traffic, 

and

• Relative importance of shared use path and roadway.

Speed should not be the sole factor used to determine priority, 

as it is sometimes appropriate to give priority to a high volume 

shared use path crossing a low volume street, or to a regional 

shared use path crossing a minor collector street.” (2009, Sec. 

9B.03)

CONSIDERATIONS

• A stop-controlled approach should have STOP signs (R1-1) 

and a stop line. 

• A yield-controlled approach should have YIELD signs (R1-2) 

and yield lines. 1

• The uncontrolled approach should have warning signs 2

and warning pavement markings. 3

(AASHTO Bike Guide 2012, pp. 5-38–5-42)

INTERSECTION DESIGN

At intersections, paths and roadways should meet as close to 

90 degrees as possible. Skewed intersections reduce visibility, 

maneuverability, and increase crossing distances. The faster 

the user, the longer the distance needed for that user to slow 

or stop. The fastest users at the intersection are typically the 

motor vehicle and bicyclist. These users should determine the 

needed sight line. 

People walking and bicycling along the roadway and wishing 

to access the path should also be considered. Pedestrians and 

novice bicyclists will often access a path via an intersecting 

sidewalk 4 , whereas more experienced bicyclists will often 

access a path via the roadway. 5 Good intersection design 

will accommodate all user types who wish to access the path 

via the intersection by providing ramps and adequate room to 

turn, or a raised crossing that also functions as a speed table 

for the roadway. 

CROSSING TREATMENTS

A variety of other treatments can enhance the safety and 

comfort of path intersections. These include traffic calming 

techniques such as raised crossings or chicanes, pedestrian 

crossing islands 6 , curb extensions to improve visibility 

and shorten crossway distances, or widening the path at the 

crossing to accommodate queuing of path users.

For more information, refer to the design topics on Enhanced 

Crossing Treatments and Traffic Calming and Design Speed.

MARKINGS AND SIGNS

Pavement markings and signs can alert roadway and path 

users to crossings and should be coordinated closely with the 

crossing control markings and signs. High-visibility crosswalks 

can improve visibility. 7 Paired with advanced stop or yield 

lines, high-visibility crosswalks are useful when paths cross 

roadways with multiple travel lanes to improve sight lines 

between path users and vehicles in the second or third lane. 

Additional treatments such as Rectangular Rapid Flashing 

Beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons may be justified at some 

crossings.

Wayfinding signs can be used at intersections to inform path 

users of the roadway ahead or of key destinations in the vicinity. 

All wayfinding signs should comply with the MUTCD. 

PATH WIDTH

Shared use paths can experience conflicts due to the width 

of the path. For more information, refer to the design topic on

Shared Use Paths.

DESIGN STRATEGIES
MIDBLOCK PATH INTERSECTIONS 105

OBSTRUCTIONS LIGHTING AND MAINTENANCE

Sufficient lighting is key to ensuring visibility of 

all modes. Lighting is especially important at 

unsignalized midblock intersections so pedestrians 

are visible where the potential for conflict exists. 

Consideration should be given to lighting for activities 

during non-daylight hours. 

Maintenance should be performed routinely to 

eliminate uneven surfaces and trim vegetation.

Objects that may destabilize or distract path users should 

not be used at intersections since path users must be able 

to focus their attention on intersecting traffic. Particularly 

at intersections, path surfaces should be well-maintained 

and smooth. The intersection approach should be free of 

obstructions such as bollards, vegetation, and signs.

2

4

6

1

1 5

2

7

3
106 MIDBLOCK PATH INTERSECTIONS

CASE STUDIES

The midblock crossing of 30th Avenue NE and the BurkeGilman Trail in Seattle, WA was rebuilt in 2014 and included 

several new design treatments. The trail crossing location 

is extremely busy with approximately one million trail users 

per year, which increases the importance for safety and 

quality design. The key feature of the redesign was a raised 

trail crossing on 30th Avenue NE, that allows bicyclists to 

cross the roadway at the same grade as the Burke-Gilman 

Trail and signifies that trail users are prioritized. The raised 

intersection was designed to reduce vehicle speeds, create 

greater visibility, and reduce conflicts between motorists and 

trail users. The project also included widened sidewalks, new 

street and trail signs, new curb ramps, and a landscaped buffer 

between the sidewalk and roadway.

The Capital City Trail is a popular shared use path in Madison, 

Wisconsin’s densely-developed downtown isthmus. The City 

has made the path crossings safer at many intersections by 

adding curb extensions, high-visibility crosswalk markings, 

and warning signs to alert roadway users of the path crossing. 

The path’s permanent bike counters display bicycle volumes 

in real time. These volumes typically range from 2,500–4,000 

bicyclists per day, depending on the day of the week. Currently, 

bicyclists on the Capital City Trail must yield or stop to 

motorists at most crossings, but given the path’s popularity 

several crossings have been changed to require motorists to 

stop for path users. Future path crossings being planned by the 

City will prioritize path users.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. 2012.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Guidance Memorandum on Promoting the Implementation of Proven Safety 

Countermeasures. 2012. 

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. 

Institute of Transportation Engineers. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. 2010.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Rights-of-Way. 2011.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way: Shared Use Paths. 

2013.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

RAISED TRAIL CROSSING BURKE-GILMAN TRAIL

SEATTLE, WA

PRIORITIZED PATHWAY CAPITAL CITY TRAIL

MADISON, WI
107

Shared streets, also called flush streets or woonerfs, prioritize 

pedestrian and bicycle movement by slowing vehicular speeds 

and communicating clearly through design features that 

motorists must yield to all other users. Shared streets use 

various design elements to blur the boundary between pedestrian 

and motor vehicle space. The design should create conditions 

where pedestrians and bicyclists can walk or ride on the street 

and cross at any location, as opposed to at designated locations. 

This encourages cautious behavior on the part of all users, which 

in turn reinforces slower speeds and comfortable walking and 

bicycling conditions.

By slowing the travel speed of all modes, shared streets 

encourage social interaction and lingering. They support a 

variety of adjacent land uses including commercial and retail, 

entertainment venues, restaurants, offices, and residences, while 

still accommodating commercial loading and transit operations. 

Shared streets have also been shown to increase economic 

vitality and vibrancy. 

FHWA encourages additional research and best practice review 

for shared streets, specifically relating to accessibility. Potential 

topics include existing European planning and guidance, design 

techniques to distinguish pedestrian-only and shared space, 

effects of surface materials (e.g., pavers, cobblestones, etc.), 

interpretation of hard versus soft edges, and impacts of grates, 

slopes, and crossing treatments.

SHARED STREETS

SAFETY

The design, operations, and maintenance of shared streets 

should encourage lower vehicle speeds, reducing the likelihood 

and severity of crashes.

ACCOMMODATION AND COMFORT

Shared streets should communicate clearly that motorists are 

guests on the street and must proceed slowly and cautiously.

COHERENCE

Design details should communicate clearly that the shared 

street is a multimodal environment where pedestrians are 

given priority.

PREDICTABILITY

On shared streets, the lack of predictability of all users 

heightens awareness, thereby creating lower vehicle speeds 

and reducing conflicts.

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY

The shared street should support adjacent land uses and 

support economic and livability goals.

EXPERIMENTATION

Shared street design should use creative means to delineate 

space for pedestrians with vision disabilities.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES TO

REDUCE CONFLICTS

COMMON USERS IN CONFLICT

AND TYPICAL CRASH TYPES

Poor communication to all users on shared 

streets can contribute to crashes.

Source: Payton Chung (Creative Commons)
108 SHARED STREETS

MULTIPURPOSE SHARED STREETS

Shared streets offer a great deal of flexibility in how the space 

is designed and used. Without vertical curbs, the street can be 

closed to offer space for events, or more comfortably provide 

outdoor seating space for cafés and restaurants. Designers 

have several options for drainage design and the delineation of 

space. Through the thoughtful use of urban design principles, 

these streets can enhance the sense of place and emphasize 

the pedestrian and bicycle priority of the street. 

A multipurpose shared street allows different uses of the 

space on different days of the week, times of day, or seasons, 

extending the public space at times of celebration, special 

events, or festivals. Sidewalks, parking, and vehicle travel lanes 

can be available at various times. Movable planters, metal 

barricades, or signs can regulate the use of the space on a 

temporary or regularly scheduled basis. 4

REMOVING VERTICAL CURBS

Typically, shared streets do not use vertical curbs—the entire 

street surface is flush, with minimal separation between 

sidewalks and the travel way. While vertical curbs discourage 

motor vehicle encroachment, they have limited ability to 

prevent a vehicle from driving onto the sidewalk. There are 

several techniques available to designers to control drainage 

and help delineate the roadway edge, which are typical uses of 

curbs. 

CONSIDERATIONS

• Surface or pavement materials of varying textures, 

patterns, and colors provide visual cues for each mode. 

Trench grates can provide a visual and tactile distinction 

between pedestrian-only space and space where motorists 

may be present. Vertical elements such as lighting, 

bollards, street trees, planters, and furnishings can also 

delineate the space. 

• Stormwater can be captured without vertical curbs through 

proper grading and drainage techniques. A valley gutter can 

be provided along a flush curb, such as between parking 

and the travel way. Valley gutters can convey stormwater 

to inlets or to green infrastructure such as tree pits or rain 

gardens that may also provide shade and vegetation.

DESIGN SPEED

Shared streets are considered self-enforcing roads, designed 

and operated primarily for pedestrian traffic. Designs for 

shared streets should lead to slow vehicular speeds. The 

maximum design speed should not exceed 20 mi/h. However, 

the preferred design speed is between 10 and 15 mi/h. For 

more information, refer to the design topics on Traffic Calming 

and Design Speed and Slow Streets.

VOLUME CONSIDERATIONS

Local access streets with relatively high pedestrian demands 

tend to be good candidates for shared street treatments. 

Shared streets should have no more than 100 vehicles during 

the peak hour for pedestrians to feel comfortable sharing 

the road with motorists (FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System 2013). If volumes exceed 

this threshold, designers can consider restricting access 

for specific vehicle types to reduce volumes. If vehicular 

volumes are too high, pedestrians will avoid the middle part 

of the street. Depending on the role of the shared street in the 

transportation network, personal vehicles may be directed to 

alternative routes; while taxis and freight and transit vehicles 

are allowed. Emergency access should be maintained on 

shared streets.

INTERSECTION CONSIDERATIONS

At intersections, designers should consider traditional marked 

crosswalks and detectable warning surfaces in order to alert 

pedestrians of potential vehicular conflicts. Consider alerting 

drivers entering the shared street of the intended use of the 

space and the appropriate speed by using gateway features 

such as signs, raised crossings 1 , raised intersections, or 

curb extensions. For more information, refer to the design 

topic on Intersection Geometry. Signs should be warning signs 

with the wording such as SHARED STREET. 2 An advisory 

speed plaque can supplement the warning sign. Signs should 

comply with the MUTCD.

ALLEYWAYS

Alleyways are typically narrow streets behind buildings 

providing service access. They feature relatively low vehicular 

volumes and may operate unofficially as shared streets. 

Shared alleyways make the space more accessible for all 

users. Removing curbs and adding gateway treatments can 

help alert users of the shared space. Designers can also use 

paving treatments such as permeable pavements to assist 

with stormwater management. All paving surfaces must meet 

pedestrian accessibility requirements. 3

DESIGN STRATEGIES
SHARED STREETS 109

ACCESSIBILITY

Shared streets should be designed carefully for people 

with disabilities. This can be done by providing a frontage 

zone along buildings where a traditional sidewalk is 

located. The frontage zone can be delineated with 

different paving treatments, drainage infrastructure, trees, 

street furniture, art, or parking. Paving textures in the 

frontage zone should be smooth and vibration free, with a 

minimum of 5 feet clear space. For more information, refer 

to the design topic on Accessibility.

1

2

3 ALLEYWAY

4 MULTIPURPOSE STREET
110 SHARED STREETS

CASE STUDIES

Many streets in Cambridge were first constructed centuries 

ago in constrained rights-of-way with narrow sidewalks that 

do not meet accessibility standards. As a result, pedestrians 

tend to walk within the roadway on these streets. The City’s 

regulations allow for shared streets in which vehicular traffic 

mixes with bicyclists, pedestrians, and loading activity. These 

streets are designed for motorists to yield to pedestrians, use 

caution, and travel slowly. Winthrop Street is designed so that 

the sidewalk and roadway are flush. Pedestrian-only space 

is delineated from space where vehicles are permitted by 

different-colored pavers, flush curbing, bollards, and planters. 

Movable planters are also used to close the street to vehicular 

traffic at certain times of day.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets. 2011. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of 

Pedestrian Facilities. 2004.

Federal Highway Administration. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009. 

Federal Highway Administration. “Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: Shared Streets.” Last 

modified August 2013. http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=67.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013.

United States Access Board. Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 2011.

FOR MORE INFORMATION

FIRST STREET NORTH

JACKSONVILLE BEACH, FL

WINTHROP STREET

CAMBRIDGE, MA

First Street is a beachfront destination, running parallel to 

the Atlantic Ocean and providing access to Jacksonville 

Beach, residences, restaurants, shops, and hotels. The City of 

Jacksonville Beach decided to implement the shared street 

concept by removing road markings and putting vehicles at 

the same plane as pedestrians. The street has pedestrians, 

vehicles, and bicyclists on even footing, with equal rights to the 

street. This causes drivers to slow and give way to other users.

As an additional benefit of the flush condition, the street 

creates universal access without the need for designated 

curb ramps. The City felt this was an important feature for 

accessibility as well as for those visiting the beach with 

coolers, chairs, and strollers.
CONCLUSION 111

CONCLUSION
112 CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

This resource provides practical real-world planning and 

design information to help communities achieve connected 

pedestrian and bicycle networks. These networks help people 

of all ages and abilities get where they need to go, including to 

and from jobs, school, grocery stores, health care, recreation, 

and transit. Complete multimodal networks enhance access to 

opportunity for everyone and help reconnect communities.

The techniques highlighted in this resource draw from a broad 

range of existing national design guidelines and references. 

They improve safety for all roadway users, and at the same 

time make walking and biking for transportation more 

comfortable, thereby encouraging more people to view these 

modes as viable transportation choices.

The Federal Highway Administration encourages its partners 

and stakeholders to use this information not only to inform the 

planning and project design process at the local, regional, and 

State level, but also to update national design guidelines and 

references.

FHWA-HEP-16-055

For More Information:

Visit http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian