Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide —

Providing Safety and Mobility

Publication No. FHWA-RD-01-102

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Research and Development

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

March 2002
Foreword

The FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program’s overall goal is to increase pedestrian and

bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanding

public educational and safety programs, the FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program

strives to pave the way for a more walkable future.

The Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide was part of a large FHWA study entitled “Evaluation of Pedestrian

Facilities.” The guide is the culmination of results from the research conducted as part of the large study.

The guide provides useful information regarding walkable environments, pedestrian crashes and their

countermeasures, and engineering improvements for pedestrians.

This guide will be useful for transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved

in increasing pedestrian safety and mobility. Citizens may also use this guide for identifying tools to

improve the safety and mobility of all who walk.

Michael F.Trentacoste, Director

Office of Safety Research

and Development

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the Department of Transportation in the interest

of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use

thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade and manufacturers’

names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the object of the document.

ii
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

Chapter 1: The Big Picture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 2: Pedestrian Crash Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Chapter 3: Selecting Pedestrian Safety Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Chapter 4: The Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

A. Pedestrian Facility Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

1 . Sidewalks or Walkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43

2 . Curb Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

3 . Marked Crosswalks and Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

4 . Transit Stop Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

5 . Roadway Lighting Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48

6 . Pedestrian Overpasses/Underpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

7 . Street Furniture/Walking Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50

B. Roadway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51

8 . Bicycle Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52

9 . Roadway Narrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53

10. Reducing Number of Lanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

11. Driveway Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55

12. Raised Medians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .56

13. One-Way/Two-Way Street Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

14. Curb Radius Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 

15. Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .59 

C. Intersection Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61

16. Roundabouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

17. Modified T-Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .63

18. Intersection Median Barriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

D. Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

Roadway Narrowing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

19. Curb Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

20. Chokers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

21. Crossing Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72

Lateral/Horizontal Shifts in the Roadway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

22. Chicanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

23. Mini-Circles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .74

Table of Contents

iii
Raised Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

24. Speed Humps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

25. Speed Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .75

26. Raised Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

27. Raised Pedestrian Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76

Complementary Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

28. Gateways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .77

29. Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .78

30. Specific Paving Treatments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .79

Whole Street Designs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

31. Serpentine Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80

32. Woonerf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

E . Traffic Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

33. Diverters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .85

34. Full Street Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86

35. Partial Street Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87

36. Pedestrian Streets/Malls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .88

F . Signals and Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .89

37. Traffic Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90

38. Pedestrian Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .91

39. Upgrade/Modify Pedestrian Signal Timing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .92

40. Traffic Signal Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .94

41. Right-Turn-on-Red Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95

42. Advanced Stop Lines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .96

43. Add/Modify Signing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .97

G. Other Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

44. School Zone Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .100

45. Identify Neighborhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

46. Speed-Monitoring Trailer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

47. On-Street Parking Enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .104

Problem-Solving Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .105

Chapter 5: Implementation and Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .109

Appendix A: Pedestrian Facility Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .129

Appendix B: Recommended Guidelines/Priorities for Sidewalks

and Walkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Appendix C: Recommended Guidelines for Crosswalk Installation . . . . . . .155

iv
Introduction

Walking is such a basic human activity that it has frequently been overlooked in the quest to build sophisticated transportation systems. Now

people want to change that. They want to live in places that are welcoming, safe, and enjoyable. They want livable communities where they

can walk, bicycle, recreate, and socialize.

Creating a pedestrian environment involves more than laying down a

sidewalk or installing a signal. A truly viable pedestrian system involves

both the big picture and the smallest details — from how a city is built

to what materials are under our feet. Facilities should be accessible to all

pedestrians, including those with disabilities. Accessible design is the

foundation for all pedestrian design and facilities need to be planned,

designed, operated, and maintained to be usable by all people.

Because most of the work that will be done involves retrofitting existing

places, improving the pedestrian environment will probably be done on

a street-by-street, neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

Photo by Dan Burden

1
How to Use This Guide

Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide — Providing Safety and Mobility is

intended primarily for engineers, planners, safety professionals, and

decisionmakers, but it may also be used by citizens for identifying

pedestrian tools to improve the safety and mobility of those who

walk.

The purpose of this guide is to provide useful information on how to

identify safety and mobility needs and improve conditions for pedestrians within the roadway right-of-way. Chapter 1:The Big Picture gives

an overview on how to create a safe, walkable environment.

Chapter 2: Pedestrian Crash Factors describes basic pedestrian crash

trends and the examination and classification of crash types to determine appropriate countermeasures. Chapter 3: Selecting Pedestrian Safety

Improvements defines 13 pedestrian crash-type groupings and factors

important in selecting the best countermeasures. These crash groupings are then presented in terms of how to select pedestrian safety

improvements to address specific crash problems.

Chapter 4:The Tools contains the details of 47 different engineering

improvements for pedestrians. These improvements relate to pedestrian facility design, roadway design, intersection design, traffic calming,

traffic management, and signals and signs. Chapter 4 also provides a

simplified list of improvements to address certain broad objectives

(e.g., reducing speeds on a street, reducing pedestrian exposure) without the need for pedestrian crash data.

Further resources are listed in Chapter 5: Implementation and Resources,

including a section on involving the community in developing priorities, strategies for construction, and raising funds for pedestrian

improvements. A bibliography of suggested readings and useful web

site addresses are also provided.

The Appendices contain additional information regarding Pedestrian

Facility Case Studies (success stories,Appendix A), Recommended

Guidelines/Priorities for Sidewalks and Walkways (Appendix B), and

Recommended Guidelines for Crosswalk Installation (Appendix C).

2
Land Use

Assume That People Will Walk

Transit

Streets: The Arteries of Life

How Pedestrians Are Affected by Traffic:

Traffic Volume and Speed

ADA Design Guidelines 

Chapter 1

The Big Picture

Photo by Michael Ronkin

3
Land Use

Creating a walkable community starts with the very nature of the

built environment: having destinations close to each other; siting

schools, parks, and public spaces appropriately; allowing mixed-use

developments; having sufficient densities to support transit; creating

commercial districts that people can access by foot and wheelchair;

and so on. Most walking trips are less than 0.8 km (0.5 mi).(1) While

mixed-use developments with sufficient density to support transit and

neighborhood commercial businesses can make walking a viable

option for residents, single-use, low-density residential land-use patterns discourage walking.When residents are segregated from sites

such as parks, offices, and stores, there will be fewer pedestrian trips

because destinations are not close enough for walking.The connection

between land-use planning and transportation planning is critical, but

all too often ignored.

Integrating land-use and transportation planning allows new developments to implement these strategies from the onset. Communities that

support balanced transportation make walking and public transit

attractive options.

Design streets for people to use them.

Assume people will walk. 

Photo by Cara Seiderman

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Cooperative

Research Program, Transit and Urban Form, TCRP Report 16,

1996. Chart adapted from Figure 19.

4
In established communities, many of these goals can be met with "infill development" to increase density and community viability.

Changes in zoning laws and sidewalk warrants to allow mixed-use

development and pedestrian connections, such as sidewalks, easy-toaccess crosswalks, and shared-use paths, can also increase pedestrian

safety and mobility.

Assume That People Will Walk

Whether building new infrastructure or renovating existing places, it

should always be assumed that people will walk and plans should be

made to accomodate pedestrians. People will want to walk everywhere

they can, and a comfortable, inviting, and safe environment should be

provided for them.There are many reasons that people walk: to run

errands, to visit neighbors, to go to local stores, to take their children

to the local park, for exercise, or even for the sheer enjoyment of

being a pedestrian. Children should be able to walk to school or to

their friends’ houses. All of these activities constitute a significant

number of trips. About four-fifths of all trips are non-work-related.(1)

If people aren’t walking, it is probably because they are prevented from

doing so. Either the infrastructure is insufficient or has serious gaps.

Are there continuous walkways? Are there physical barriers such as

rivers, drainage ways, walls, or freeways that prevent convenient walking access in a community? Do bridges for automobiles also provide a

safe walking area for pedestrians? Does the lack of curb ramps or the

existence of steep grades or steps prevent access for the elderly or people in wheelchairs? Are there information barriers preventing people

with visual disabilities from crossing the street? Is there a major road

that separates the residential neighborhood from the commercial district? Are there places for people to cross roads safely?

Walking rates in different neighborhoods within the same city are directly related to the quality of the system. In other words, in highquality pedestrian environments, lots of people walk.Where the system

fails — missing sidewalks, major barriers, no safe crossings — people

walk less, and those who do are at greater risk.

People also want to walk in an environment where they can feel safe,

not only safe from motor vehicle traffic, but safe from crime or other

concerns that can affect personal security. Areas need to be well lit to

encourage walking during evening hours. If the pedestrian system is

not accessible, it is often not safe. For example, lack of access may

cause wheelchair users to use the street rather than a poorly maintained sidewalk. Some populations may be at a higher risk of pedestrian crashes. Children under age 15 are the most overrepresented group

in pedestrian crashes and people over age 65 have the most pedestrian

fatalities.Therefore, it is especially important to provide adequate facilities

in the vicinity of land uses such as retirement homes and school zones.

A busy commercial street in Ann Arbor,

Michigan emphasizes pedestrian use

and provides attractive areas for people to sit, stroll, and meet.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

5
The walking environment should be open and inviting, but not sterile

and vacant. Pedestrians need more than sidewalks and crosswalks. In

addition to protecting pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic, it is

important to have a secure, pleasant, and interesting walking environment to encourage people to walk.

Traditionally, safety problems have been addressed by analyzing police

crash reports and improvements have been made only after they are

warranted by crash numbers. However, planners and engineers should

consider problem-identification methods such as interactive public

workshops, surveying pedestrians and drivers, and talking with police

to identify safety problems in an area before crashes occur. This may

help proactively identify locations for pedestrian safety improvements

and will involve citizens in the process of improving safety and mobility in their own communities.

Transit

Walking and transit are complementary. Good walking conditions for

pedestrians are important inducements to using public transportation,

since most public transit trips include a pedestrian trip at one or both

ends. People should be able to walk to a bus stop or a train station

from their homes and to jobs, shopping, and other activities.

Conversely, good public transportation, with buses, subways, and paratransit vehicles that run frequently and are reliable, is essential to

achieving a walkable city. The trip should be as seamless as possible

and transit stops should be friendly, comfortable places.When development occurs around a transit stop, more transit can be supported, and

people will have more options for how to travel there. Special attention should be paid to how people will get from the transit stop to

their destinations. No matter how convenient the trip is otherwise, if

pedestrians don’t feel safe for even a short distance, they will choose

not to go, or to go by another mode (usually driving — and the more

people who drive, the less pedestrian-friendly a place becomes).

Streets: The Arteries of Life

Streets serve many functions, including:

• Linkage.They connect parts of cities to each other, one town to

another, and activities and places.

• Transportation.They provide the surface and structure for a variety of modes.All modes and users should be provided for: pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, motor vehicles, emergency services, maintenance services, etc.

• Access.They provide public access to destinations.

6
Before

After

Pedestrian injuries are less severe on lower speed roadways. The street pictured

above is a heavily traveled arterial in one of Seattle, Washington’s thriving residential neighborhoods. High speed and concerns about pedestrian safety resulted in the redesign shown in the “after” picture. Bike lanes and a median strip

have encouraged slower traffic speeds. Speeds were reduced by about 4.8 km/h

(3 mi/h), while average daily traffic remained about the same.

7
• Public right-of-way. Space for utilities and other underground

infrastructure is usually a hidden function of the street.

• Sense of place.The street is a definable place, a place for people to

interact, the heart of a community. A street can serve this role by

being a venue for parties, fairs, parades, and community celebrations, or by simply being a place where neighbors stop to chat.

Streets are often designed to emphasize some functions over others.

At one extreme is a limited-access highway that serves as a corridor

for motor vehicle travel. At the other extreme is a private cul-de-sac,

which has no linkage and has limited access. Many streets are designed

so that certain desirable functions are not provided. Examples include

commercial streets where access to destinations is difficult, and strip

development along high-speed roads where no sidewalks or pedestrian

crossings exist.

When streets and roads are evaluated for improvements, it is helpful to

consider whether the design effectively meets all the desired functions

of the roadway. If not, the street should be redesigned to adequately

meet those functions.

How Pedestrians Are Affected by Traffic: 

Traffic Volume and Speed

High volumes of traffic can inhibit a person’s feeling of safety and

comfort and create a “fence effect” where the street is almost an

impenetrable barrier. The effect of traffic volumes on community life

has been measured. In his seminal 1980 study, Donald Appleyard

looked at how traffic volumes on comparable streets in San Francisco

affected community life. People living on a street with light traffic

(2,000 vehicles per day) had three times as many friends and twice as

many acquaintances on the street as did people living on a street with

heavy traffic (16,000 vehicles a day).(2)

Traffic speed is usually the more critical aspect to walkability and safety. Though pedestrians may feel comfortable on streets that carry a

significant amount of traffic at low speeds, faster speeds increase the

likelihood of pedestrians being hit.At higher speeds, motorists are less

likely to see a pedestrian, and even less likely to actually stop in time

to avoid a crash.At a mere 49.9 km/h (31 mi/h), a driver will need

about 61.0 m (200 ft) to stop, which may exceed available sight distance; that number is halved at 30.6 km/h (19 mi/h).(3)

Unfortunately, most of our streets are designed to encourage higher

traffic speeds. Fortunately, we do have tools that can change this, primarily by redesigning streets through traffic calming or by designing

new streets with lower design speeds. Speed reductions can increase

pedestrian safety considerably. The safety benefits of reduced speeds

8
ADA Design Guidelines

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed to ensure that

all people, including those with disabilities, have equal access to transportation. People with disabilities may have limited visual and cognitive ability, or a combination of disabilities, which is more common as

a person grows older. A person may experience a disability on a permanent or temporary basis.Without accessible pedestrian facilities,

people with disabilities will have less opportunities to engage in

employment, school, shopping, recreation, and other everyday activities. New or altered facilities must provide access for all pedestrians.

This also needs to occur when implementing all the tools and treatments that are presented in this guide.

While improvements for persons with disabilities were mandated by

the Federal Government to ensure access and mobility for physicallychallenged pedestrians, most of these improvements benefit all pedestrians. Some of the items that will be presented in this guide, such as

adequate time to cross streets, well-designed curb ramps, limited driveways, and sidewalks that are wide and clear of obstructions and have

minimal cross-slope, are examples of design features that will accommodate pedestrians with disabilities, persons using strollers, and indeed,

all pedestrians.(4)

This roadway may act as a barrier to pedestrians. Those who are walking along the

waterfront may find it difficult to cross to the commercial establishments and those

on the commercial side may be reluctant to cross to the waterfront.

Photo by Dan Burden

extend to motorists and cyclists as well, although the advantage to

pedestrians is the most substantial.

9
All new construction or retrofit projects must include curb ramps that

comply with ADA requirements.Agencies should review their street

system to identify other barriers to accessibility and prioritize the

needed improvements. Examples of barriers that are often overlooked

include poles and signs in the middle of a sidewalk, steeply sloped

driveways, and interruptions such as broken or missing sidewalk sections.An adequate level of surveillance and maintenance can also be

important to providing accessibility, especially in winter months in areas where snow accumulates.While all streets should be upgraded to

be accessible, public agencies should set priorities for high-use areas,

such as commercial districts, schools, parks, transit facilities, etc., and

retrofit as rapidly as possible.

Street designs that accommodate people with disabilities create a better walking

environment for all pedestrians.

Photo by Kristen P. Oguntoyinbo

10
Chapter 2

Pedestrian Crash Factors

Pedestrian Crash Statistics

Pedestrians Most at Risk

Alcohol Impairment

Speeding

Times of Occurrence

Area Type

Location Type

Crash Types and Countermeasures

Typing Pedestrian Crashes

Photo by Dan Burden

11
Chapter 1 provided an overview of the need to provide a more pedestrian-friendly environment along and near streets and highways.

Chapter 2 addresses the pedestrian crash problem and related factors

that must be understood to select appropriate facilities to improve

pedestrian safety and mobility. A brief discussion of the pedestrian

crash problem in the United States is given below and is also reported

by Zegeer and Seiderman in a related publication.(1)

Pedestrian Crash Statistics

Pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes are a serious problem throughout the

world and the United States has a particular problem with pedestrian

deaths and injuries.

Specifically, 4,906 pedestrians were reported to have been killed in

motor vehicle crashes in the United States in 1999.(2) These deaths

accounted for 11.8 percent of the 41,611 motor vehicle deaths nationwide that year. An estimated 85,000 pedestrians were injured or killed

in motor vehicle collisions, which represents 2.6 percent of the 3.2

million total persons injured in traffic crashes.(2) A drop in pedestrian

fatalities in recent years may reflect the fact that people are walking

less, as evidenced by the U.S. Census and the Nationwide Personal

Transportation Survey (NPTS). The need to reduce pedestrian deaths

and injuries while promoting increased walking continues to be an

important goal for the engineering profession.

Pedestrians Most at Risk

Crash involvement rates (crashes per 100,000 people) are the highest

for 5- to 9-year-old males, who tend to dart out into the street. This

problem may be compounded by the fact that speeds are frequently a

problem in areas where children are walking and playing.

In general, males are more likely to be involved in a crash than

females; in 1999, more than 70 percent of pedestrian fatalities were

male and the male pedestrian injury rate was a third higher than for

females.(2)

Rates for older persons (age 65 and over) are lower than for most age

groups, which may reflect greater caution by older pedestrians (e.g.,

less walking at night, fewer dart-outs) and a reduced amount of walking near traffic. However, older adult pedestrians are much more vulnerable to serious injury or death when struck by a motor vehicle

than younger pedestrians. For example, the percentage of pedestrian

crashes resulting in death exceeds 20 percent for pedestrians over age

75, compared to less than 8 percent for pedestrians under age 14.(3-4)

12

Photos by Dan Burden 
Alcohol Impairment

Alcohol impairment is a serious problem for pedestrians as well as

drivers of motor vehicles, although there is evidence that the picture is

improving. From 1980 through 1989, 37 percent to 44 percent of

fatally injured pedestrians had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of

.10 or greater. In 1997, that figure was 29.5 percent and the intoxication rate for drivers was 12.5 percent. In 1989, of all adult pedestrians

killed in nighttime collisions with motor vehicles, 59 percent had a

BAC of .10 or greater, while only 31 percent had no alcohol in their

blood.(4-5) From 1987 to 1997, the intoxication rates for pedestrian

fatalities in all age groups decreased, with the highest decrease, 19 percent, for those 55 to 64 years old and the least decrease, 3 percent, for

those 35 to 44 years old.(2,6)

Speeding

Speeding is a major contributing factor in crashes of all types. In 1997,

speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal crashes.(2)

Speeding has serious consequences when a pedestrian is involved. A

pedestrian hit at 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h) has an 85 percent chance of

being killed; at 48.3 km/h (30 mi/h), the likelihood goes down to 45

percent, while at 32.2 km/h (20 mi/h), the fatality rate is only 5 percent.(7) Faster speeds increase the likelihood of a pedestrian being hit.

At higher speeds, motorists are less likely to see a pedestrian, and are

even less likely to be able to stop in time to avoid hitting one.

13

Photos by Dan Burden 
Times of Occurrence 

Pedestrian crashes are most prevalent during morning and afternoon

peak periods, when the traffic levels are highest. Fatal pedestrian crashes typically peak later in the day, between 5 and 11 p.m., where darkness and alcohol use are factors.(6) In 1997, nearly one-half of all

pedestrian fatalities occurred on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday (17 percent, 18 percent, and 13 percent, respectively).(2,9) Crashes where older

pedestrians are hit are more evenly distributed throughout the days of

the week than those for younger pedestrians. Older pedestrians are

more likely to be struck during daylight hours, when they are most

likely to be exposed to traffic.(3) September through January have the

highest number of nationwide pedestrian fatalities, with typically fewer

daylight hours and more inclement weather.(4,8) Child pedestrian fatalities are greatest in May, June, and July, perhaps due to an increase in

outside activity.(8)

Area Type

Pedestrian crashes occur most frequently in urban areas where pedestrian activity and traffic volumes are greater compared to rural areas.

The National Safety Council estimates that 85.7 percent of all nonfatal pedestrian crashes in the United States occur in urban areas and

14.3 percent occur in rural areas. However, 25 percent of pedestrian

fatalities occur in rural areas, where vehicle speeds are higher than on

city streets.(8,10) In addition, many rural areas have no sidewalks, paths,

or shoulders to serve as separated pedestrian facilities.

Location Type

In terms of crash location, 65 percent of crashes involving pedestrians

occur at non-intersections.This is particularly true for pedestrians

under age 9, primarily because of dart-outs into the street. For ages 45

to 65, pedestrian crashes are approximately equal for intersections and

non-intersections. Pedestrians age 65 and older are more likely to be

struck at intersections (60 percent) compared to non-intersections (40

percent), since older pedestrians tend to cross at intersections more

often than younger ones.(9) Moreover, some older pedestrians have

physical and vision disabilities that place greater demand on intersection design.(8-9) Studies have shown that older pedestrians are particularly overrepresented in crashes at intersections involving left-turning

and right-turning vehicles.(3)

14

Photo by Dan Burden 
Crash Types and Countermeasures

Close examination of pedestrian crashes can suggest corrective measures to lessen the likelihood of some of these crashes. In the 1970s,

methods for typing pedestrian and bicycle crashes were developed by

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to better define the sequence of events and precipitating actions leading to

pedestrian/motor vehicle crashes.(11-13) These methodologies were

applied by Hunter in a 1996 study to more than 8,000 pedestrian and

bicycle crashes from 6 States.(14) The results provided a representative

summary of the distribution of crash types experienced by pedestrians

and bicyclists. Some of the most frequently occurring types, include

dart-out first half (i.e., the pedestrian is struck in the first half of the

street being crossed) (24 percent), intersection dash (13 percent), dartout second half (10 percent), midblock dart (8 percent), and turningvehicle crashes (5 percent).(11-13)

Typing Pedestrian Crashes

The development of effective roadway design and operation, education, and enforcement measures to accommodate pedestrians and prevent crashes is hindered by insufficient detail in computerized State

and local crash files. Analysis of these databases can provide information on where pedestrian crashes occur (city, street, intersection, twolane road, etc.), when they occur (time of day, day of week, etc.), and

characteristics of the victims involved (age, gender, injury severity,

etc.). Current crash files cannot provide a sufficient level of detail

regarding the sequence of events leading to the crash.

The crash-typing methodology described above has evolved over time

and has been refined as part of a software package known as the

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT). The development of PBCAT was sponsored by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) and NHTSA through the University of

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.

PBCAT is a software product intended to assist State and local pedestrian and bicycle coordinators, planners, and engineers with the problem of lack of data regarding the sequence of events leading to a crash.

PBCAT accomplishes this goal through the development and analysis

of a database containing details associated with crashes between motor

vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. One of these details is the crash

type, which describes the pre-crash actions of the parties involved. Of

the more than 60 specific pedestrian crash types used for PBCAT,

there are 13 general classifications useful for grouping pedestrian

crashes. They are defined in Chapter 3. With the database developed,

the software can then be used to produce reports and select countermeasures to address the problems identified. Those interested may reg15
ister for the PBCAT software and user’s manual from the Pedestrian

and Bicycle Information Center website at: www.walkinginfo.org/pbcat.

16
Chapter 3

Selecting Pedestrian Safety

Improvements

Methods to Identify High-Crash/High-Risk

Locations

Methods to Improve Pedestrian Safety

Crash-Related Countermeasures

Definitions of Pedestrian Crash Types

Photo by Dan Burden

17
This chapter is divided into three sections. The first section discusses

the process of identifying locations for safety treatments where pedestrian crashes have occurred in the past and may occur in the future.

The second section of this chapter is a general discussion of methods

to improve pedestrian safety. The chapter concludes by providing a

matrix of pedestrian engineering and operational improvements that

might be used to address 13 pedestrian crash groups.

Methods to Identify High-Crash/High-Risk

Locations

A first step in the process of improving pedestrian safety is to identify

locations or areas where pedestrian crash problems exist and where

engineering, education, and enforcement measures will be most beneficial. Mapping the locations of reported pedestrian crashes in a neighborhood, campus, or city is a simple method of identifying sites for

improving walking safety. One method of analyzing crash locations

includes using computerized Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

software, as shown by the density map of reported pedestrian crashes

on a college campus pictured on the next page.

This type of map can help transportation engineers and planners focus

safety improvements on intersections, street sections, or neighborhoods

where pedestrian crashes have occurred.

Several issues should be considered when creating GIS maps of reported crash locations. First, the total number of pedestrians and vehicles

that use each location will affect reported crash density.

Photo by Robert Schneider

18
Second, pedestrian crashes may not be reported frequently enough to

establish a pattern of unsafe walking locations. In either case, performing a conflict analysis, noting pedestrian and driver behavior or

examining roadway and walkway characteristics at specific sites, or

mapping locations known to have a high potential for pedestrian

crashes in an area may improve the identification of unsafe locations

for walking. Other methods for identifying locations with pedestrian

problems include using walkability checklists and calculating a pedestrian level of service.

Methods to Improve Pedestrian Safety

Some pedestrian crashes are associated with deficient roadway

designs. Pedestrians and motorists often contribute to pedestrian

crashes through a disregard or lack of understanding of laws and safe

driving or walking behavior.(1) Because most crashes are a result of

human error, crashes will not be completely eliminated as long as

pedestrians and vehicles share the same space. Yet, the consequences

of these crashes are exacerbated by speeding, failing to yield, or failing

to check both directions for traffic, so new education, enforcement,

19
and engineering tools are needed to manage the conflict between

pedestrians and drivers.

A complete program of pedestrian safety improvements includes:(1-2)

• Provision of pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks and crosswalks.

• Roadway and engineering measures, such as traffic control 

devices, lighting, and roadway design strategies implemented on 

streets and highways for both pedestrian and vehicular movements.

• Programs to enforce existing traffic laws and ordinances for 

motorists (e.g., obeying speed limits, yielding to pedestrians 

when turning, traffic signal compliance, obeying drunk-driving 

laws) and pedestrians (e.g., crossing the street at legal crossings,

obeying traffic and pedestrian signals).

• Forgiving vehicle designs that minimize pedestrian injury from 

vehicle impact.

• Wearing of reflective clothing and materials by pedestrians,

and/or using a flashlight when walking at night.

• Education programs provided to motorists and pedestrians.

Roadway improvements can often reduce the likelihood of a pedestrian crash. Physical improvements are most effective when tailored to an

individual location and traffic problem. Factors to consider when

choosing an improvement include: location characteristics, pedestrian

and vehicle volume and types, vehicle speed, design of a given location, city laws and ordinances, and financial constraints.(1,3)

It is important to remember that overuse or unjustified use of any traffic control measure is not recommended, since this may breed disrespect for such devices.(4) Although facilities for pedestrians can, in

many cases, reduce the risk of pedestrian collisions, crash reduction is

not the only reason for providing such facilities. Other benefits of

pedestrian facilities include improved access to destinations by walking, better air quality due to less dependence on driving, and improved

personal health.Traffic and transportation engineers have the responsibility for providing facilities for all modes of travel, including walking.(1)

Crash-Related Countermeasures

A total of 47 different pedestrian measures are presented in this guide

that address various types of roadway situations. However, engineers

and planners may want further guidance on which pedestrian measures are appropriate to address certain types of pedestrian crashes.

Pages 22-25 contain a matrix of 12 pedestrian crash groupings, with a

list of 49 possible countermeasures. The final two countermeasures,

education and enforcement, are essential complements to each of the

47 engineering treatments. Although they are not discussed in detail

in this guide, they are addressed in several education and enforcement

references. The dots in the matrix suggest the countermeasures that

20
may be primary candidates to address a given crash type, which takes

into account whether the crash type occurs at an intersection or midblock location. The secondary benefits are not included in the matrix.

For example, the primary purpose of a pedestrian street is to address

midblock crash types (e.g., dartout, dash). Although a pedestrian may

have the secondary benefit of eliminating a "through vehicle at intersection" crash type, it is not a suggested treatment for this crash type. Instead,

such countermeasures as mini-circles, intersection diverters, etc., are suggested in the matrix to address "through vehicle at intersection" crashes.

To illustrate how to use the table, consider the second crash type on

the table ("Multiple Threat"). This is a crash involving an unsignalized

crossing on a multi-lane road, where one vehicle stops to let a pedestrian cross the street. The pedestrian steps into the street in front of

the stopped vehicle and then continues into the adjacent lane in front

of an oncoming vehicle and is struck. The driver of the second vehicle may not see the pedestrian, since the sight distance is typically

blocked by the first (stopped) vehicle.

The chart shows that there are 20 potential countermeasures that may

reduce the probability of this type of crash, depending on the site conditions.These countermeasures include curb extensions (which

improve sight distance between pedestrians and motorists), pedestrian

crossing islands (which provide places of refuge in the middle of the

street), crosswalk enhancements, and other possible countermeasures.

After the four-page countermeasure matrix, a more detailed listing is

given for each crash type that shows potential countermeasures for

various possible causes or problems. For example, for Crash Group 2

(Multiple Threat), three possible causes or problems contributing to

this crash type include:

• Motorist’s view of pedestrian is blocked so motorist fails to yield.

• Pedestrian tries to cross high-speed and/or high-volume arterial 

street.

• Pedestrian does not have adequate time to cross multi-lane road

way.

A different list of countermeasures is given for each of these three

possible contributing factors.

These charts are intended to give general information on candidate

measures that should be considered when trying to reduce a pattern of

pedestrian crashes at a location or roadway section. Many pedestrian

crashes are the direct result of careless or illegal driver behavior and/or

unsafe pedestrian behavior. Many of these crashes cannot necessarily be

prevented by roadway improvements alone. In such cases, pedestrian

and/or motorist education and enforcement activities may be helpful.

The next chapter provides details on the 47 engineering improvements to enhance pedestrian safety and mobility.

21
CRASH GROUP Midblock Multiple Midblock Failure to BusDart/Dash Threat Mailbox Yield Related

Etc. (Unsignalized)

COUNTERMEASURES

1. Sidewalk/Walkway •

2. Curb Ramp • •

3. Crosswalk Enhancements •• ••

4.Transit Stop Treatments •• ••

5. Roadway Lighting •••••

6. Overpass/Underpass •• •

7. Street Furniture • •

8. Bike Lane/Shoulder •••••

9. Road/Lane Narrowing ••••

10. Fewer Lanes • ••

11. Driveway Improvement

12. Raised Median ••••

13. One-Way Street

14. Smaller Curb Radius •

15. Right-Turn Slip Lane

16. Modern Roundabout

17. Modified T-Intersection

18. Intersection Median Barrier • •

19. Curb Extension •• ••

20. Choker • •

21. Pedestrian Crossing Island •• ••

22. Chicane • ••

23. Mini-Circle

24. Speed Humps • ••

25. Speed Table ••••

26. Raised Intersection •

22
Turning Through Vehicle Walking Working/ Not in Backing Crossing

Vehicle At Along Playing Road Vehicle Expressway

At Intersection Roadway in Road

Intersection

••••

•••

• •

• •

•••••••

•• •

•

•••

• •

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

• •

•

• •

•• ••

• •

•

•• •

•

•

• •

23
Midblock Multiple Midblock Failure to BusDart/Dash Threat Mailbox Yield Related

Etc. (Unsignalized)

COUNTERMEASURES

27. Raised Ped. Crossing •• ••

28. Gateway • ••

29. Landscape Options •

30. Paving Treatments •

31. Driveway Link/Serpentine • •

32.Woonerf •

33. Diverter •

34. Full Street Closure •

35. Partial Street Closure •

36. Pedestrian Street • •

37.Traffic Signal •• ••

38. Pedestrian Signal •• ••

39. Pedestrian Signal Timing

40. Signal Enhancement •

41. RTOR Restriction

42.Advanced Stop Lines • •

43. Sign Improvement •••••

44. School Zone Improvement •• ••

45. Identify Neighborhood • ••

46. Speed-Monitoring Trailer • ••

47. Parking Enhancement • •••

48. Ped./Driver Education •••••

49. Police Enforcement •••••

CRASH GROUP

24
Turning Through Vehicle Walking Working/ Not in Backing Crossing

Vehicle At Along Playing Road Vehicle Expressway

At Intersection Roadway in Road

Intersection

•• •

•

• •

• •

•

•

•• •

•• •

•• •

•

• •

• •

• •

• •

•

• •

••••• •

••• •

• •

•••

•• ••

•••••••

••••• •

25
Of the more than 60 specific pedestrian crash types, there are 13 crash

groupings (12 specific types and 1 miscellaneous type) that are most useful

for identifying safety problems and corresponding countermeasures. They

are defined below:

Definitions of Pedestrian Crash Types

1. Midblock: Dart/Dash

The pedestrian walked or ran into the roadway and was struck by a vehicle.

The motorist’s view of the pedestrian may have been blocked until an instant

before the impact, and/or the motorist may have been speeding.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Child runs into neighborhood/collector street.

General Countermeasures

a. Implement traffic-calming measures such as speed humps, speed tables, or

chicanes.

b. Remove or restrict on-street parking.

c. Provide adequate nighttime lighting.

d. Provide curb extensions.

e. Install spot street narrowing at high midblock-crossing locations.

f. Narrow travel lanes.

g. Install street closure/diagonal diverter at selected intersection(s).

h. Provide adult crossing guard (in school zone).

i. Educate children about safe crossing behavior and adults about speeding.

j. Add on-street bike lanes.

k. Convert street to woonerf, pedestrian street, or driveway link/serpentine.

l. Design gateway to alert motorists that they are entering neighborhood with

high level of pedestrian activity.

m.Provide a raised pedestrian crossing.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian tries to cross high-speed and/or high-volume arterial street.

General Countermeasures

a. Install medians or pedestrian crossing islands.

b. Provide staggered crosswalk through the median (forcing pedestrians to walk

and look to the right for oncoming traffic in the second half of street).

c. Provide curb extensions at intersections or midblock to improve direct line

of sight between vehicle and pedestrian.

d. Improve/add nighttime lighting.

e. Install midblock traffic signal with pedestrian signals, if warranted.

f. Install standard warning sign (see Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD)) or yellow or fluorescent yellow/green signs to alert drivers to

pedestrian crossing area.

g. Install overpass or underpass.

26
2. Multiple Threat 

The pedestrian entered the traffic lane in front of stopped traffic and was struck

by a vehicle traveling in the same direction as the stopped vehicle.The stopped

vehicle may have blocked the visibility between the pedestrian and the striking

vehicle, and/or the motorist may have been speeding.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Motorist’s view of pedestrian is blocked and motorist fails to yield.

General Countermeasures

a. Recess stop lines 9.1 m (30 ft) in advance of crosswalk.

b. Install traffic signals with pedestrian Hand/Man or WALK/DON’T WALK

signals, if warranted.

c. Provide midblock or intersection curb extensions.

d. Install traffic-calming devices such as speed tables or raised pedestrian crossings on local or other neighborhood streets.

e. Install barriers or signs to prohibit crossings and direct pedestrians to safer

crossing locations nearby.

f. Provide raised crosswalks to improve pedestrian visibility.

g. Install advance warning signs or flashers.

h. Relocate bus stop to far side of crossing area.

i. Improve roadway lighting.

j. Enforce crosswalk laws.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian tries to cross high-speed and/or high-volume arterial street.

General Countermeasures

a. Narrow travel lanes (e.g., add bike lanes) to slow vehicle speeds and 

reduce crossing distance.

b. Reduce roadway width. For example, modify four-lane undivided roadways

to two through lanes with sidewalks and bike lanes, plus a center two-way

left-turn lane (or raised median).

c. Increase police enforcement of speed limit.

d. Construct overpass or underpass.

e. Install raised median or pedestrian crossing island.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Pedestrian does not have adequate time to cross multi-lane roadway.

General Countermeasures

a. Install traffic signals with pedestrian WALK/DON’T WALK signals, if 

warranted.

h. Enforce speed limits, pedestrian ordinances.

i. Add traffic-calming measures.

j. Bus young children across busy streets or adjust school district boundaries.

k. Relocate bus stop.

l. Use speed-monitoring trailer.

27
3. Mailbox or Other Midblock

The pedestrian was struck while getting into or out of a stopped vehicle or

while crossing the road to/from a mailbox, newspaper box, ice-cream truck,

etc.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Pedestrian struck while going to/from a private residence mailbox/newspaper box.

General Countermeasures

a. Relocate mailboxes to safer crossing area or provide safer crossings at 

existing location.

b. Improve lighting.

c. Provide traffic-calming measures (e.g., chicanes or raised devices on residential streets).

d. Add bike lanes and reduce total roadway and lane width.

e. Install pedestrian warning signs (see MUTCD).

f. Implement driver education program.

g. Implement pedestrian education program.

h. Provide raised median on multi-lane arterial street.

i. Construct gateway or provide signs that identify neighborhood as an area 

with high levels of pedestrian activity.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian struck while going to/from an ice-cream vendor or similiar destination.

General Countermeasures

a. Reduce lane or roadway width.

b. Add pedestrian crossing islands to roadway.

c. Provide traffic-calming measures on local streets.

d. Create Public Service Announcements (PSAs) to educate parents, children,

and drivers.

e. Adopt an Ice-Cream Truck Ordinance. This ordinance would prohibit 

motorists from passing a stopped ice-cream truck. Trucks would be 

equipped with flashing lights and a "stop" arm that would extend when the 

truck stopped to serve children.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Pedestrian struck while getting into/out of parked vehicle or by an emergency

or speeding vehicle.

b. Adjust pedestrian signal timing.

c. Provide raised crosswalk to improve pedestrian visibility.

d. Provide midblock or intersection curb extensions.

e. Install raised pedestrian crossing island.

f. Enforce crosswalk laws.

g. Reduce roadway width.

28
4. Failure to Yield at Unsignalized Location

At an unsignalized intersection or midblock location, a pedestrian stepped into

the roadway and was struck by a vehicle. The motorist failed to yield to the

pedestrian and/or the pedestrian stepped directly into the path of the oncoming vehicle.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Motorist fails to yield to pedestrian at two-lane, low-speed road crosswalk (or

unmarked crossing).

General Countermeasures

a. Install raised intersection, raised crosswalk, speed table, or speed humps with 

truncated domes at both ends.

b. Install overhead CROSSWALK, school zone, or other warning signs.

c. Install curb extensions or choker.

d. Construct raised pedestrian crossing island.

e. Install traffic signal with pedestrian signals, if warranted.

f. Add chicane, use serpentine design or use special paving treatments along

street to slow traffic.

g. Use landscaping that slows vehicle speeds without impeding sightlines.

h. Reduce curb radius to slow vehicle speeds.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian has difficulty crossing multi-lane road.

General Countermeasures

a. Install raised medians or pedestrian crossing islands.

b. Install traffic signal with pedestrian signals, if warranted.

c. Modify four-lane, undivided street to two lanes plus a two-way, left-turn

lane (TWLTL) or median with turning pockets and bike lanes.

d. Install nighttime lighting.

e. Use police speed enforcement.

f. Use far-side bus stops.

g. Narrow lanes, reduce number of lanes, and/or install bike lanes.

h. Construct overpass or underpass.

i. Ensure that curb ramps are provided to make crossing easier for all pedestrians.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Motorist unwilling to yield due to high motorist speeds or high traffic volumes.

General Countermeasures

a. Implement speed-reduction measures such as chicanes or speed tables.

b. Implement traffic-calming measures on local/collector streets.

c. Restrict on-street parking.

d. Increase police enforcement of speed limit.

29
5. Bus-Related 

The pedestrian was struck by a vehicle either: (1) by crossing in front of a

commercial bus stopped at a bus stop; (2) going to or from a school bus stop;

or (3) going to or from, or waiting near, a commercial bus stop.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Motorist fails to yield to pedestrian or pedestrian crosses during inadequate gap

in traffic due to limited sight distance at intersection.

General Countermeasures

a. Move bus stop to far side of intersection or crosswalk.

b. Install curb extension.

c. Consider an alternative bus stop location.

d. Install pedestrian crossing islands or raised crosswalk.

e. Install or improve roadway lighting.

f. Install crosswalk markings to encourage pedestrians to cross in the crosswalk

behind the bus.

g. Mark bus stop area with pedestrian warning signs.

h. Remove parking in areas that obstruct the vision of motorists and pedestrians.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian has difficulty walking along roadway and crossing at midblock location with high vehicle speeds and/or high volumes.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide bus pull-off area.

b. Consider an alternative bus stop location.

c. Install midblock curb extensions.

d. Provide curb ramps and an accessible sidewalk.

e. Install sidewalk and/or sidewalk barriers to direct pedestrians to a nearby

crossing location.

f. Provide pedestrian education/training.

g. Add bike lanes or painted shoulder.

h. Add recessed stop lines.

General Countermeasures

a. Implement traffic-calming measures.

b. Narrow roadway by reducing number of lanes, reducing lane widths, and/or

adding bicycle lanes.

c. Provide gateway, identify neighborhood with signs, and/or create a pedestrian street.

d. Increase police enforcement of speed limit.

e. Construct pedestrian crossing islands.

f. Install traffic signal with pedestrian signals, if necessary.

g. Install signs or sidewalk barriers to guide pedestrians to safer crossing locations.

h. Use speed-monitoring trailer.

30
i. Increase police speed enforcement.

j. Install or improve roadway lighting.

k. Reduce number of roadway lanes.

l. Install traffic and pedestrian signals, if warranted.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Pedestrian has difficult time crossing, waiting, or walking in the vicinity of

school bus stop.

General Countermeasures

a. Select safer location for school bus stop.

b. Implement pedestrian/driver education programs.

c. Involve school, neighborhood groups, and PTA in promoting enforcement

and education.

d. Provide sidewalks.

e. Provide street furniture or other amenities at bus stop.

f. Install or improve roadway lighting.

g. Enforce regulations against passing stopped school bus.

h. Educate pedestrians to cross behind the bus.

6. Turning Vehicle at Intersection

The pedestrian was attempting to cross at an intersection and was struck by a

vehicle that was turning right or left.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Conflict between pedestrian and left-turning vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Prohibit left turns.

b. Provide separate left-turn and WALK/DON’T WALK signals.

c. Add special pedestrian signal phasing (e.g., exclusive protected pedestrian

signal or leading pedestrian interval).

d. Convert to one-way street network (if justified by surrounding areawide

pedestrian and traffic volume study).

e. Install warning signs for pedestrians and/or motorists (see MUTCD).

f. Develop/provide Public Safety Announcement (PSA) safety messages.

g. Add curb extensions or curb ramps.

h. Convert intersection to modern roundabout or mini-circle where all

motorists turn right.

i. Consider closing street or using modified T-intersection, diverter, or intersection median barrier.

j. Construct overpass or underpass.

k. Install pedestrian crossing island and raised median.

l. Use traffic-calming devices, such as a raised intersection or raised pedestrian

crossing, to reduce vehicle speeds.

31
Possible Cause/Problem #2

Conflict between pedestrian and right-turning vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Prohibit Right Turn on Red (RTOR).

b. Reduce right-turn radii.

c. Add curb extensions or curb ramps.

d. Improve right-turn slip-lane design.

e. Install warning signs for pedestrians and/or motorists.

f. Provide leading pedestrian interval.

g. Remove intersection snow/clutter at the corner to improve visibility and

give pedestrian space to stand outside of roadway.

h. Improve intersection lighting to improve visibility.

i. Provide advanced stop lines and marked crosswalks.

j. Consider street closure.

k. Move bus stop to far side of intersection.

l. Construct overpass or underpass.

m.Install pedestrian crossing island and raised median.

n. Use a traffic-calming device, such as a raised intersection or raised pedestrian

crossing, to reduce vehicle speeds.

o. Remove on-street parking from the approaches to crosswalks.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Substantial number of school children crossing and large turning vehicle movement.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide adult crossing guards during school crossing periods, or two guards

for wide streets.

b. Provide police enforcement at the intersection.

c. Educate children about safe crossing behavior.

d. Install pedestrian crossing islands for wide two-way streets.

e. Prohibit left turns.

f. Add exclusive pedestrian phase or leading pedestrian interval.

g. Improve intersection lighting.

h. Consider closing street or using modified T-intersection, diverter, or intersection median barrier.

Possible Cause/Problem #4

Inadequate sight distance and/or intersection geometrics.

General Countermeasures

a. Remove sight obstructions and/or roadside obstacles (e.g., trees/shrubs,

mailboxes, poles, newsstands, trash cans).

b. Provide special pedestrian signal phasing (e.g., exclusive protected pedestrian

signal interval).

c. Install pedestrian warning signs and/or motorist regulatory signs (see

MUTCD).

d. Prohibit left turns.

32
7. Through Vehicle at Intersection

The pedestrian was struck at a signalized or unsignalized intersection by a

vehicle that was traveling straight ahead.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Pedestrian could not see traffic signal.

General Countermeasures

a. Install new or larger pedestrian WALK/DON’T WALK or automated

pedestrian signals.

b. Move bus stop to far side of intersection.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Children crossing in school zones.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide adult crossing guards, or two guards for wide streets.

b. Install pedestrian overpass or underpass.

c. Install pedestrian signals.

d. Install school regulatory flashers (e.g., SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH WHEN

FLASHING).

e. Provide school zone signs and pavement markings.

f. Provide pedestrian education to students and motorists.

g. Increase police enforcement.

h. Use traffic-calming devices such as raised intersection or mini-circle to

reduce vehicle speeds.

i. Consider closing street or using diverter or intersection median barrier.

j. Provide advanced stop lines.

k. Provide curb extensions to reduce crossing distance.

l. Provide curb ramps to make crossing easier for all pedestrians.

m.Provide a raised pedestrian crossing.

n. Convert to one-way street network (if justified by surrounding areawide

pedestrian and traffic volume study).

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Excessive delay to pedestrians prior to getting the WALK interval.

General Countermeasures

a. Re-time signal to be more responsive to pedestrian needs (e.g., shorter cycle

lengths or convert to fixed-time operation).

b. Provide quick-response pedestrian push-buttons or automatic (e.g.,

microwave or infrared) detectors.

33

e. Reduce turn radii.

f. Install right-turn slip lane with pedestrian safety islands.

g. Improve intersection lighting.

h. Add paving treatments that improve visibility of pedestrian crossing areas.

i. Prohibit Right Turn on Red (RTOR).
8. Walking Along Roadway

The pedestrian was walking or running along the roadway and was struck

from the front or from behind by a vehicle.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Inadequate walking area.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide a sidewalk on both sides of road.

c. Install pedestrian overpass or underpass (if justified based on high pedestrian

volumes with high traffic speeds or volumes).

d. Provide pedestrian crossing islands.

Possible Cause/Problem #4

Lack of pedestrian compliance with WALK phase due to other causes.

General Countermeasures

a. Re-time signal to be more responsive to pedestrian needs (e.g., shorter cycle

length).

b. Provide adequate WALK and clearance intervals.

c. Provide leading pedestrian interval.

d. Provide pedestrian education to students and motorists.

e. Provide adult crossing guard at school crossings.

Possible Cause/Problem #5

Motorist did not see pedestrian in time to stop.

General Countermeasures

a. Remove sight obstructions such as mailboxes or parked vehicles.

b. Add pedestrian crossing islands or raised crosswalk.

c. Remove on-street parking near intersection (e.g., up to 30.5 m [100 ft]).

d. Use traffic-calming devices, such as speed tables or a speed-monitoring 

trailer, on streets approaching the intersection if speed is an issue.

e. Add curb extensions.

f. Construct raised intersection.

g. Improve nighttime lighting.

h. Move bus stop to far side of intersection.

i. Add paving treatments that improve visibility of pedestrian crossing areas.

Possible Cause/Problem #6

Motorist ran red light at signalized intersection.

General Countermeasures

a. Increase police enforcement.

b. Install camera enforcement.

c. Add short all-red interval at signal.

34
b. Provide an asphalt path or paved shoulder.

c. Reduce number of lanes (e.g., four lanes to three lanes) and add sidewalk,

planting strip, bike lanes, or painted shoulder.

d. Construct and maintain sidewalks and curb ramps to be usable by people

with disabilities.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

High vehicle speeds and/or volume.

General Countermeasures

a. Add sidewalk or walkway.

b. Provide nighttime lighting.

c. Install "Walk on Left Facing Traffic" signs.

d. Increase lateral separation between pedestrians and motor vehicles (e.g., bike

lanes or landscape buffers).

e. Increase police enforcement of speed limit.

f. Construct and maintain sidewalks and curb ramps to be usable by people

with disabilities.

g. Use speed-monitoring trailers.

h. Construct gateway or install signs to identify neighborhood as area with

high pedestrian activity.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Indequate route to school.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide sidewalks.

b. Involve school groups and PTA in evaluating safe routes to school and promoting education and enforcement.

c. Provide adult crossing guards.

d. Implement traffic-calming methods at selected sites.

e. Construct and maintain sidewalks and curb ramps to be usable by people

with disabilities.

Possible Cause/Problem #4

Sidewalks are not accessible to all pedestrians.

General Countermeasures

a. Construct curb ramps.

b. Remove obstacles in sidewalk.

c. Build missing sidewalk segments.

d. Relocate poles and street furniture to provide continuous passage in sidewalk area.

e. Enforce parking laws to prevent cars from blocking sidewalks.

35
36

9. Working/Playing in Road 

A vehicle struck a pedestrian who was: (1) standing or walking near a disabled

vehicle, (2) riding a play vehicle that was not a bicycle (e.g., wagon, sled, tricycle, skates), (3) playing in the road, or (4) working in the road.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Worker, policeman, etc. struck in roadway (arterial street).

General Countermeasures

a. Provide better physical separation/protection from motor vehicles.

b. Improve nighttime lighting and retroreflective materials on workers.

c. Improve traffic control measures (e.g., signs, markings, cones, barricades, and

flashers) warning motorists of workers’ presence.

d. Increase police enforcement of speed limits in work zones.

e. Increase worker safety training.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian was struck playing on foot or on play vehicle (e.g., skateboard,

wagon, sled, in-line skates) on local/collector street.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide accessible sidewalks or walkways on both sides of street.

b. Introduce traffic-calming measures (e.g., speed humps, street narrowing).

c. Improve nighttime lighting.

d. Implement pedestrian and motorist education programs.

e. Provide community park/playground.

f. Convert streets to a woonerf or use signs to identify neighborhood as area

with high levels of pedestrian activity.

g. Consider street closures (full or partial) or using diverters.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Vehicle speeds are excessive on local street.

General Countermeasures

a. Narrow streets and/or travel lanes.

b. Install traffic-calming devices such as speed humps, speed tables, mini-circles,

and/or chicanes.

c. Convert to driveway link/serpentine street.

d. Use speed-monitoring trailers in conjunction with police enforcement.

Possible Cause/Problem #4

Disabled vehicle-related (walking to/from disabled vehicle).

General Countermeasures

a. Provide sidewalks, walkways, or paved shoulders.

b. Implement pedestrian/driver education program.

c. Provide adequate nighttime lighting.

d. Provide motorist assistance program.
10. Not in Road (Sidewalk, Driveway, Parking Lot, or

Other)

The pedestrian was standing or walking near the roadway edge, on the sidewalk, in a driveway or alley, or in a parking lot, when struck by a vehicle.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Pedestrian was struck while waiting to cross roadway, standing at or near curb.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide accessible sidewalks/walkways and crosswalks.

b. Install curb extensions for better line of sight between pedestrians and

motor vehicles.

c. Reduce curb radii to slow turning cars.

d. Implement driver education program.

e. Install sidewalk barriers.

f. Improve nighttime lighting.

g. Increase speed enforcement.

h. Provide sidewalk buffer (landscape strip or bike lane).

i. Use adult crossing guard.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrian was struck in parking lot, driveway, private road, gas station, alley, etc.

General Countermeasures

a. Redesign or re-stripe parking lot to provide pedestrian access.

b. Maintain level sidewalk across driveway area.

c. Implement pedestrian and motorist education programs.

d. Move sidewalk farther back so that driver will have more time to stop for a

pedestrian crossing a driveway.

e. Improve nighttime lighting.

f. Build/improve local parks for child activities.

g. Provide clear pedestrian path across parking lot.

h. Remove landscaping or other visual obstructions near driveways.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Vehicle entered or exited a driveway or alley and struck pedestrian.

Possible Cause/Problem #5

Working on or standing by a disabled vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide paved shoulders.

b. Provide adequate nighttime lighting.

c. Educate drivers about what to do if a vehicle becomes disabled.

d. Provide a motorist assistance program.

37
12. Crossing on Expressway

The pedestrian was struck while crossing a limited-access expressway or

expressway ramp.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Disabled vehicle (pedestrian crosses expressway to seek help).

General Countermeasures

a. Install/upgrade roadway lighting.

b. Increase police surveillance.

c. Provide motorist assistance program.

d. Educate drivers on what to do if a vehicle is disabled.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Pedestrians routinely cross section of expressway.

11. Backing Vehicle 

The pedestrian was struck by a backing vehicle on a street, in a driveway, on a

sidewalk, in a parking lot, or at another location.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Pedestrian struck by backing vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Enhance pedestrian education.

b. Enhance motorist education.

c. Provide auditory backing alert on vehicle.

d. Eliminate, modify, or relocate parking if feasible.

e. Remove unneeded driveways and alleys.

f. Remove landscaping or other sight obstruction near driveways.

g. Provide clearly delineated walkways for pedestrians in parking lots.

h. Relocate pedestrian walkways.

i. Improve nightime lighting.

j. Provide raised pedestrian crossings or curb extensions to improve the visibility of pedestrians to backing motorists.

38

General Countermeasures

a. Provide sidewalk or walkway.

b. Add adequate planting strip or sidewalk separation.

c. Remove sight obstructions (e.g., trim hedges or lower fencing).

d. Maintain level sidewalks across driveways or alleys.

e. Narrow driveways and reduce turning radii.

f. Provide clear walking path across driveway.

g. Remove unneeded driveways and alleys.

h. Provide advance warning signs for drivers.
General Countermeasures

a. Install large, visible pedestrian warning signs.

b. Install/upgrade nighttime lighting.

c. Provide pedestrian overpass/underpass.

d. Install pedestrian fencing or barriers along roadway right-of-way

e. Increase police surveillance.

13. Miscellaneous 

This category includes all other pedestrian crash types, such as: intentional

crashes, driverless vehicle, a secondary crash after a vehicle/vehicle collision, a

pedestrian struck by falling cargo, emergency vehicle striking a pedestrian, a

pedestrian standing or lying in the road, or other/unknown circumstances.

The information described above on pedestrian crash groups is referenced in

the next chapter for selecting corresponding pedestrian safety improvements.

Possible Cause/Problem #1

Pedestrian lying in road.

General Countermeasures

a. Install or upgrade nighttime lighting.

b. Increase police enforcement and surveillance.

c. Provide taxi rides home from bars.

Possible Cause/Problem #2

Emergency vehicle-related.

General Countermeasures

a. Increase police surveillance.

b. Install/upgrade lighting.

c. Provide public education.

Possible Cause/Problem #3

Pedestrian falls from vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Increase police enforcement of teens "vehicle surfing."

b. Pass/enforce laws and provide education programs against riding in back of 

pickup trucks.

Possible Cause/Problem #4

Pedestrian standing in road prior to crash — action unknown.

General Countermeasures

a. Provide accessible sidewalks/walkways and crosswalks.

b. Install/upgrade roadway lighting.

c. Provide raised median (multi-lane roads).

d. Add pedestrian crossing islands.

39
e. Enforce speed limit.

f. Provide safe pedestrian crossings (e.g., traffic signal, if warranted).

Possible Cause/Problem #5

Pedestrian struck by driverless vehicle.

General Countermeasures

a. Require mandatory statewide vehicle inspection.

b. Address through State driver education program.

40

Chapter 4

The Tools

A total of 47 roadway and engineering improvements are discussed in this chapter.

The categories of improvements include:

A. Pedestrian Facility Design

B. Roadway Design

C. Intersection Design

D. Traffic Calming

E. Traffic Management

F. Signals and Signs

G. Other Measures

Photo by Dan Burden

41
A. Pedestrian Facility Design

Walkways are the portion of the

public right-of-way that provide

a separated area for people traveling on foot.Walkways that are

safe, accessible, and aesthetically

pleasing attract pedestrians.

People walk for many reasons: to

go to a neighbor’s house, to run

errands, for school, or to get to a

business meeting. People also

walk for recreation and health

benefits or for the enjoyment of

being outside. Some pedestrians

must walk to transit or other

destinations if they wish to travel independently. It is a public

responsibility to provide a safe,

secure, and comfortable system

for all people who walk.

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Cara Seiderman

42
1. Sidewalks or Walkways

Sidewalks and walkways are “pedestrian lanes” that provide people

with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated

from roadway vehicles. They also provide places for children to walk,

run, skate, ride bikes, and play. Sidewalks are associated with significant

reductions in pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles.(1) Such facilities also improve mobility for pedestrians and provide access for all

types of pedestrian travel: to and from home, work, parks, schools,

shopping areas, transit stops, etc.Walkways should be part of every new

and renovated facility and every effort should be made to retrofit

streets that currently do not have sidewalks.

While sidewalks are typically made of concrete, less expensive walkways may be constructed of asphalt, crushed stone, or other materials if

they are properly maintained and accessible (firm, stable, and slipresistant). In more rural areas, in particular, a “side path” made of one

of these materials may be suitable. The Institute of Transportation

Engineers (ITE) guidelines recommend a minimum width of 1.5 m

(5 ft) for a sidewalk or walkway, which allows two people to pass

comfortably or to walk side-by-side.Wider sidewalks should be

installed near schools, at transit stops, in downtown areas, or anywhere

high concentrations of pedestrians exist. Sidewalks should be continuous along both sides of a street and sidewalks should be fully accessible

to all pedestrians, including those in wheelchairs.(2)

A buffer zone of 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft) is desirable and should be provided to separate pedestrians from the street. The buffer zone will vary

according to the street type. In downtown or commercial districts, a

street furniture zone is usually appropriate. Parked cars and/or bicycle

lanes can provide an acceptable buffer zone. In more suburban or rural

areas, a landscape strip is generally most suitable. Careful planning of

sidewalks and walkways is important in a neighborhood or area in order

to provide adequate safety and mobility. For example, there should be a

flat sidewalk provided in areas where driveways slope to the roadway.

Recommended guidelines and priorities for sidewalks and walkways

are given in Appendix B.

This sidewalk and buffer zone provides a safe place for pedestrians to walk outside of the paths of vehicles in the street.

Purpose:

• Create the appropriate facility

for the walking area of the

public right-of-way.

• Improve pedestrian safety

dramatically.

Considerations:

• While continuous walkways

are the goal, retrofitting areas

without them will usually

occur in phases. Lack of a

seamless system is no excuse

not to provide parts of the

system.

• In retrofitting streets that do

not have a continuous or

accessible system, locations

near transit stops, schools,

parks, public buildings, and

other areas with high concentrations of pedestrians should

be the highest priority.

• Street furniture placement

should not restrict pedestrian

flow.

Estimated Cost:

The cost for concrete curbs and

sidewalks is approximately

$49/linear meter ($15/linear

foot) for curbing and

$118/square meter ($11/square

foot) for walkways. Asphalt curbs

and walkways are less costly, but

require more maintenance, and

are somewhat more difficult to

walk and roll on for pedestrians

with mobility impairments.

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Dan Burden

43
2. Curb Ramps

Curb ramps (wheelchair ramps) provide access between the sidewalk

and roadway for people using wheelchairs, strollers, walkers, crutches,

handcarts, bicycles, and also for pedestrians with mobility impairments

who have trouble stepping up and down high curbs. Curb ramps must

be installed at all intersections and midblock locations where pedestrian crossings exist, as mandated by federal legislation (1973

Rehabilitation Act).Wheelchair ramps must have a slope of no more

than 1:12 (must not exceed 25.4 mm/0.3 m (1 in/ft) or a maximum

grade of 8.33 percent), with a maximum side slope of 1:10, and must

be designed in accordance with the ADA guidelines.

Where feasible, separate curb ramps for each crosswalk at an intersection should be provided rather than having a single ramp at a corner

for both crosswalks. This provides improved orientation for visually

impaired pedestrians. Similarly, tactile warnings will alert pedestrians to

the sidewalk/street edge. All newly constructed and altered roadway

projects must include curb ramps. In addition, all agencies should upgrade existing facilities. They can begin by conducting audits of their

pedestrian facilities to make sure transit services, schools, public buildings, and parks, etc. are accessible to pedestrians who use wheelchairs.

While curb ramps are needed for use on all types of streets, priority

locations are in downtown areas and on streets near transit stops,

schools, parks, medical facilities, shopping areas, and near residences

with people who use wheelchairs.

For more information about curb ramp design, see Designing Sidewalks

and Trails for Access, Part I, by the Federal Highway Administration, and

Accessible Rights-of-Way:A Design Guide, by the U.S.Access Board and

the Federal Highway Administration. The Access Board’s right-of-way

report can be found at www.access-board.gov.

Purpose:

• Provide access to street crossings.

Considerations:

• Follow Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) design

guidelines.

• Texture patterns must be

detectable to blind pedestrians.

Estimated Cost:

The cost is approximately $800

to $1,500 per curb ramp (new

or retrofitted).

A curb ramp should be designed to provide direct access and should have the

proper width and slope.

Adapted from Making Streets That Work,

Seattle, 1996

Photo by Michael Ronkin

44
3. Marked Crosswalks and Enhancements

Marked crosswalks indicate optimal or preferred locations for pedestrians to cross and help designate right-of-way for motorists to yield to

pedestrians. Crosswalks are often installed at signalized intersections

and other selected locations. Various crosswalk marking patterns are

given in the MUTCD.(3) Marked crosswalks are desirable at some high

pedestrian volume locations (often in conjunction with other measures) to guide pedestrians along a preferred walking path. In some

cases, they can be raised and should often be installed in conjunction

with other enhancements that physically reinforce crosswalks and

reduce vehicle speeds. It is also sometimes useful to supplement crosswalk markings with warning signs for motorists. At some locations,

signs can get "lost" in visual clutter, so care must be taken in placement.

Pedestrians are sensitive to out-of-the-way travel, and reasonable

accommodation should be made to make crossings both convenient

and safe at locations with adequate visibility.

Recommended guidelines and priorities for crosswalk installation at

controlled locations are given in Appendix C. These guidelines are

based on a major study of 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000

unmarked crossings in 30 U.S. cities. Recommendations are also given

for providing other pedestrian crossing enhancements at uncontrolled

locations with and without a marked crosswalk.(4)

Crosswalk Materials

It is important to ensure that crosswalk markings are visible to

motorists, particularly at night. Crosswalks should not be slippery or

create tripping hazards. Even though granite or cobblestones are aesthetically appealing materials, they are generally not appropriate for

crosswalks. One of the best materials for marking crosswalks is inlay

tape, which is installed on new or repaved streets. It is highly reflective,

long-lasting, and slip-resistant, and does not require a high level of

maintenance. Although initially more costly than paint, both inlay

tape and thermoplastic are more cost-effective in the long run. Inlay

tape is recommended for new and resurfaced pavement, while thermoplastic may be a better option on rougher pavement surfaces. Both

inlay tape and thermoplastic are more visible and less slippery than

paint when wet.

Purpose:

• Warn motorists to expect

pedestrian crossings.

• Indicate preferred crossing

locations.

Considerations:

• Crosswalk locations should be

convenient for pedestrian

access.

• Crosswalk markings alone are

unlikely to benefit pedestrian

safety. Ideally, crosswalks

should be used in conjunction with other measures,

such as curb extensions, to

improve the safety of a pedestrian crossing, particularly on

multi-lane roads with average

daily traffic (ADT) above

about 10,000.

• Marked crosswalks are important for pedestrians with

vision loss.

• Crosswalk markings must be

placed to include the ramp so

that a wheelchair does not

have to leave the crosswalk to

access the ramp.

Estimated Cost:

$100 for a regular striped crosswalk, $300 for a ladder crosswalk, and $3,000 for a patterned

concrete crosswalk.

City of Cambridge, MA

45
Some crosswalks are angled to the right in the median. This is intended to facilitate a pedestrian’s view of oncoming traffic before crossing the second half of the

street.

The “ladder” pattern shown above is more visible to motorists than parallel lines

and requires less maintenance if painted to allow the tires of motor vehicles to

track between the painted lines. 

Photo by Peter Lagerwey

46

Photo by Dan Burden
4. Transit Stop Treatments

Good public transportation is as important to the quality of a community as good roads.Well-designed transit routes and accessible stops are

essential to a usable system.

Bus stops should be located at intervals that are convenient for passengers. The stops should be designed to provide safe and convenient

access and should be comfortable places for people to wait. Adequate

bus stop signing, lighting, a bus shelter with seating, trash receptacles,

and bicycle parking are also desirable features. Bus stops should be

highly visible locations where pedestrians can reach them easily by

means of accessible travel routes. Therefore, a complete sidewalk system is essential to support a public transportation system. Convenient

crossings are also important.

Proper placement of bus stops is key to user safety. For example, placing the bus stops on the near side of intersections or crosswalks may

block the pedestrians’ view of approaching traffic, and the approaching

drivers’ view of pedestrians. Approaching motorists may be unable to

stop in time when a pedestrian steps from in front of a stopped bus

into the traffic lanes at the intersection.

Far-side bus stops generally encourage pedestrians to cross behind the

bus. Relocating the bus stop to the far side of the intersection can

improve pedestrian safety since it eliminates the sight-distance restriction caused by the bus. Placing bus stops at the far side of intersections

can also improve motor vehicle operation.

The bus stop location should be fully accessible to pedestrians in

wheelchairs, should have paved connections to sidewalks where landscape buffers exist, and should not block pedestrian travel on the sidewalk. Adequate room should exist to operate wheelchair lifts. Yet, it is

also useful to install curb ramps at bus stops so that a passenger can

board from the street if bus-lift deployment is blocked.

The transit shelter above is in a lively commercial district. The shelter design

reflects the surrounding architecture. Pedestrian-scale lighting and landscaping

add visual interest and security.

Purpose:

• Provide safe, convenient, and

inviting access for transit

users.

Considerations:

• Ensure that access to and

from stops is provided when

transit stops are created.

• Ensure adequate room to

load wheelchairs.

• Ensure a clear and comfortable path for passing pedestrians when placing transit shelters.

• Locate transit stops on the far

side of marked crosswalks.

Estimated Cost:

$1,000 to $10,000. Cost varies

widely depending on type of

improvements.

Adapted from Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Barbara Gray

47
This well-lit commercial district is an attractive place to shop in the evening. The

combination of pedestrian-scaled street lighting, holiday lights in the trees, and

light from shop windows enhances visibility and creates a secure and festive atmosphere.

5. Roadway Lighting Improvements

Good quality and placement of lighting can enhance an environment

as well as increase comfort and safety. Pedestrians often assume that

motorists can see them at night; they are deceived by their own ability

to see the oncoming headlights.Without sufficient overhead lighting,

motorists may not be able to see pedestrians in time to stop.

In commercial areas with nighttime pedestrian activity, streetlights and

building lights can enhance the ambiance of the area and the visibility

of pedestrians by motorists. It is best to place streetlights along both

sides of arterial streets and to provide a consistent level of lighting

along a roadway. Nighttime pedestrian crossing areas may be supplemented with brighter or additional lighting. This includes lighting

pedestrian crosswalks and approaches to the crosswalks.

In commercial areas or in downtown areas, specialty pedestrian-level

lighting may be placed over the sidewalks to improve pedestrian comfort, security, and safety. Mercury vapor, incandescent, or less expensive

high-pressure sodium lighting is often preferred as pedestrian-level

lighting. Low-pressure sodium lights are low energy, but have a high

level of color distortion.

Purpose:

• Enhance safety of all roadway

users, particularly pedestrians.

• Enhance commercial districts.

• Improve nighttime security.

Considerations:

• Ensure that pedestrian walkways and crosswalks are well

lit.

• Install lighting on both sides

of wide streets and streets in

commercial districts.

• Use uniform lighting levels.

Estimated Cost:

Varies depending on fixture type

and service agreement with

local utility.

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Dan Burden

48
6. Pedestrian Overpasses/Underpasses

Pedestrian overpasses and underpasses allow for the uninterrupted flow

of pedestrian movement separate from the vehicle traffic. However,

they should be a measure of last resort, and it is usually more appropriate to use traffic-calming measures or install a pedestrian-activated

signal that is accessible to all pedestrians. This is also an extremely

high-cost and visually intrusive measure.

Such a facility must accommodate all persons, as required by the ADA.

These measures include ramps or elevators. Extensive ramping will

accommodate wheelchairs and bicyclists, but results in long crossing

distances and steep slopes that discourage use.

Studies have shown that many pedestrians will not use an overpass or

underpass if they can cross at street level in about the same amount of

time.(5-6) Overpasses work best when the topography allows for a

structure without ramps (e.g., overpass over a sunken freeway).

Underpasses work best when designed to feel open and accessible.

Grade separation is most feasible and appropriate in extreme cases

where pedestrians must cross roadways such as freeways and highspeed, high-volume arterials.

This pedestrian overpass takes advantage of existing topography and allows

pedestrians to avoid conflicts with traffic at street level.

Purpose:

• Provide complete separation

of pedestrians from motor

vehicle traffic.

• Provide crossings where no

other pedestrian facility is

available.

• Connect off-road trails and

paths across major barriers.

Considerations:

• Use sparingly and as a measure of last resort. Most appropriate over busy, high-speed

highways, railroad tracks, or

natural barriers.

• Pedestrians will not use if a

more direct route is available.

• Lighting, drainage, graffiti

removal, and security are also

major concerns with underpasses.

• Must be wheelchair accessible, which generally results in

long ramps on either end of

the overpass.

Estimated Cost:

$500,000 to $4 million, depending on site characteristics.

Photo by Yan Jia

49
7. Street Furniture/Walking Environment

Sidewalks should be continuous and should be part of a system that

provides access to goods, services, transit, and homes.Well-designed

walking environments are enhanced by urban design elements and

street furniture, such as benches, bus shelters, trash receptacles, and

water fountains.

Sidewalks and walkways should be kept clear of poles, signposts, newspaper racks, and other obstacles that could block the path, obscure a

driver’s view or pedestrian visibility, or become a tripping hazard.

Benches, water fountains, bicycle parking racks, and other street furniture should be carefully placed to create an unobstructed path for pedestrians. Such areas must also be properly maintained and kept clear

of debris, overgrown landscaping, tripping hazards, or areas where

water accumulates. Snow removal is also important for maintaining

pedestrian safety and mobility. In most areas, local ordinances give

property owners the responsibility of removing snow within 12 to 48

hours after a storm.

Walking areas should also be interesting for pedestrians and provide a

secure environment. Storefronts should exist at street level and walking

areas should be well lit and have good sightlines.

This is a good example of a street furniture zone along the sidewalk on Portland,

Oregon’s light-rail transit line.

Purpose:

• Enhance the pedestrian environment.

• Enliven commercial districts

by fostering community life.

Considerations:

• Good-quality street furniture

will show that the community values its public spaces and

is more cost-effective in the

long run.

• Include plans for landscape

irrigation and maintenance at

the outset.

• Ensure proper placement of

furniture; do not block pedestrian walkway or curb ramps

or create sightline problems.

• Ensure adequacy of overhead

clearances and detectability of

protruding objects.

Estimated Cost:

Varies depending on the type of

furniture, the material out of

which it is constructed, and the

amount of planting material used.

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Michael Ronkin

50
B. Roadway Design

Photo by Dan Burden

51
8. Bicycle Lanes

Bike lanes indicate a preferential or exclusive space for bicycle travel

along an arterial street. Bike lanes have been found to provide more

consistent separation between bicyclists and passing motorists. Marking

bicycle lanes can also benefit pedestrians — as turning motorist slow

and yield more to bicyclists, they will also be doing so for pedestrians.

Bike lanes are typically designated by striping and/or signing, although

colored pavement (e.g., blue or red bike lanes, though they are not an

accepted MUTCD standard) has also been used in certain situations.

As striping bike lanes reduces the space dedicated to motor vehicles,

safety may be enhanced for pedestrians who wish to cross the street.

Bicycle lanes also provide a buffer between motor vehicle traffic and

pedestrians when sidewalks are immediately adjacent to the curb. On

high-speed, high-volume roads, it may be more appropriate to provide

a multi-use path to physically separate both bicyclists and pedestrians

from motor vehicle traffic.

A well-marked bicycle lane and bicycle parking in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

Purpose:

• Create on-street travel facilities for bicyclists.

• Narrow the roadway to

encourage lower motor vehicle speeds.

• Provide additional separation

between pedestrians and

motor vehicles.

• Adding on-street bike lanes

reduces the distance pedestrians must travel to cross automobile lanes.

Considerations:

• All roads should be evaluated

for on-street bicycle facilities.

• Provide adequate space

between the bike lane and

parked cars so that open

doors do not create a hazard

for bicyclists.

Estimated Cost:

The cost of installing a bike lane

is approximately $3,100 to

$31,000 per kilometer ($5,000

to $50,000 per mile), depending

on the condition of the pavement, the need to remove and

repaint the lane lines, the need

to adjust signalization, and other

factors. It is most cost efficient

to create bicycle lanes is during

street reconstruction, street

resurfacing, or at the time of

original construction.

Adapted from MUTCD

Photo by Cara Seiderman

52
9. Roadway Narrowing

Roadway narrowing can be achieved in several different ways:

a. Lane widths can be reduced (to 3.0 or 3.4 m [10 or 11 ft]) 

and excess asphalt striped with a bicycle lane or shoulder.

b.Travel lanes can be removed (see #10).

c. The street can be physically narrowed by extending sidewalks and 

landscaped areas, or by adding on-street parking within the former 

curb lines.

This can reduce vehicle speeds along a roadway section and enhance

movement and safety for pedestrians. Bicycle travel will also be

enhanced and bicyclist safety improved when bicycle lanes are added.

Colored asphalt has been used to identify bike lanes on this street in Holland. The bike

lanes visually narrow the street and help reduce speeds. Although the curb-to-curb

width is more than 9.1 m (30 ft), the motorist only sees 3.4 m (11 ft) of driving space. 

Purpose:

• Multiple benefits of lower

vehicle speeds, increased safety, and redistributing space to

other users.

Considerations:

• Bicyclists must be safely

accommodated. Bike lanes or

wide curb lanes are needed if

motor vehicle volumes

and/or speeds are high.

• Road narrowing must consider school bus and emergency service access, and

truck volumes.

• Evaluate whether narrowing

may encourage traffic to

divert to other local streets in

the neighborhood.

Estimated Cost:

Adding striped shoulders or onstreet bike lanes can cost as little

as $620 per kilometer ($1,000

per mile) if the old paint does

not need to be changed. The

cost for restriping a kilometer of

street to bike lanes or reducing

the number of lanes to add onstreet parking is $3,100 to

$6,200 ($5,000 to $10,000 per

mile), depending on the number

of old lane lines to be removed.

Constructing a raised median or

widening a sidewalk can cost

$62,000 or more per kilometer

($100,000 or more per mile).

After

Before

Photo by Dan Burden Sketches by Michael Kimelberg

53
10. Reducing Number of Lanes

Some roads have more travel lanes than necessary and are difficult to

cross because of their width. Reducing the number of lanes on a

multi-lane roadway can reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and

may slow vehicle speeds. A traffic analysis should be done to determine whether the number of lanes on a roadway (many of which

were built without such an analysis) is appropriate. Level-of-service

analysis for intersections should not dictate the design for the entire

length of roadway. For example, a four-lane undivided road can be

converted to one through lane in each direction, with a center leftturn lane or with a raised median, and turn pockets and bicycle lanes

on both sides of the roadway. Turning pockets may be needed only at

specific locations.

Depending on conditions, it may also be possible to add on-street

parking while allowing for bicycle lanes on both sides of the street —

instead of a center turn lane. If no sidewalks exist along the roadway,

these should be added. If sidewalks exist, and there is adequate room, a

landscaped buffer is desirable to separate pedestrians from the travel lane.

A typical three-lane configuration (two travel lanes and a center turn

lane) also has advantages for motorists. Through traffic can maintain a

fairly constant speed, while left-turning drivers can enter the center

turn lane to wait.

This street in Cambridge, Massachusetts was reduced from four lanes to three.

The conversion introduced wider sidewalks, additional space for landscaping,

street furniture and cafes, and bicycle lanes.

Purpose:

• Remedy a situation where

there is excess capacity.

• Provide space for pedestrians,

bicyclists, and parked cars.

• Reduce crossing width and

help optimize signal timing.

• Improve social interaction

and neighborhood feel along

the street.

Considerations:

• Roadway capacity operation

and overall road safety need

to be considered before

reducing the number of lanes.

• Ensure street connections so

major arterials can be crossed

at controlled intersections.

Estimated Cost:

The cost for restriping a kilometer of four-lane street to one

lane in each direction plus a

two-way, left-turn lane and bike

lanes is about $3,100 to $12,400

($5,000 to $20,000 per mile),

depending on the amount of

lane lines that need to be

repainted. The estimated cost of

extending sidewalks or building

a raised median is much higher

and can cost $62,000 per kilometer ($100,000 per mile) or

more.

If a reconfiguration is done after

repaving or with an overlay, and

curbs do not need to be changed,

there is little or no cost for the

change.

Before After

Photo by Cara Seiderman

54
11. Driveway Improvements

Several driveway designs may cause safety and access problems for

pedestrians, including excessively wide and/or sloped driveways, driveways with large turning radii, multiple adjacent driveways, driveways

that are not well defined, and driveways where motorist attention is

focused on finding a gap in congested traffic. In addition, driveways

without a level sidewalk landing may not comply with ADA standards.

Examples of driveway improvements include narrowing or closing

driveways, tightening turning radii, converting driveways to right-in

only or right-out only movements, and providing median dividers on

wide driveways.

When driveways cross sidewalks, it is necessary to maintain a sidewalk

level across the driveway of no more than 2 percent sideslope (see

sketch). This is more usable for all pedestrians, especially those in

wheelchairs and makes it clear to motorists that they must watch for

pedestrians. It is important to minimize large signs and bushes at

driveways to improve the visibility between motorists and pedestrians.

The sidewalk material (usually concrete) should be maintained across

the driveway as well.

The top example shows a driveway with a wide apron to accommodate two adjacent driveways and a landscaped planting strip. The driveway in the lower picture demonstrates how to provide driveway access across a sidewalk while maintaining a continuous, level walkway for pedestrians.

Purpose:

• Reduce pedestrian/motor

vehicle conflicts.

• Improve access for people

with disabilities.

• Improve visibility between

cars and pedestrians at driveways.

Considerations:

• It is best to properly design

and consolidate driveways at

the outset. Local regulations

can require appropriate

design when driveways are

created.

Estimated Cost:

No additional cost if part of

original construction.

Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook,Washington State, 1998

Photos by Peter Lagerwey

55
12. Raised Medians

Medians are raised barriers in the center portion of the street or roadway that can serve as a place of refuge for pedestrians who cross a

street midblock or at an intersection location. They may provide space

for trees and other landscaping that, in turn, can help change the character of a street and reduce speeds. They also have benefits for motorist safety when they replace center turn lanes. Desired turning movements need to be carefully provided so that motorists are not forced to

travel on inappropriate routes, such as residential streets, or make

unsafe U-turns.

Continuous medians may not be the most appropriate treatment in

every situation. In some cases, separating opposing traffic flow and elimating left-turn friction can increase traffic speeds by decreasing the

perceived friction of the roadway. They may also take up space that

can be better used for wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, landscaping

buffer strips, or on-street parking and may cause problems for emergency vehicles. In some environments, medians can be constructed in

sections, creating an intermittent rather than continuous median.

Another good alternative device for two-, three- or four-lane roads is

the crossing island, which provides a crossing refuge for pedestrians

and, in some designs, aids in decreasing vehicle speeds.

Raised medians are most useful on high-volume, high-speed roads,

and they should be designed to provide tactile cues for pedestrians

with visual impairments to indicate the border between the pedestrian

refuge area and the motorized vehicle roadway.

Purpose:

• Manage motor vehicle traffic

and provide comfortable lefthand turning pockets with

fewer or narrower lanes.

• Provide a refuge for pedestrians crossing the street.

• Provide space for street trees

and other landscaping.

Considerations:

• Ensure that there is enough

room for wider sidewalks,

bike lanes, and planting strips

before proceeding with construction.

• Landscaping in medians

should not obstruct the visibility between pedestrians

and approaching motorists.

• Median crossings at midblock

and intersection locations

must be fully accessible by

means of ramps or cutthroughs, with detectable

warnings.

Estimated Cost:

The cost for adding a raised

median is approximately

$15,000 to $30,000 per 30 m

($15,000 to $30,000 per 100 ft),

depending on the design, site

conditions, and whether the median can be added as part of a

utility improvement or other

street construction project. This attractive median provides curb ramps and median openings for wheelchair users.

Adapted from Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Dan Burden

56
13. One-Way / Two-Way Street Conversions

One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look

for traffic in only one direction.While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian

crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds, which creates new

problems. If a street is converted to one-way, it should be evaluated to

see if additional changes should be made, especially if the street or

lanes are overly wide. Also, traffic circulation in the surrounding area

must be carefully considered before conversion to one-way streets.

As a system, one-way streets can increase travel distances of motorists

and bicyclists and can create confusion, especially for non-local residents. One-way streets operate best in pairs, separated by no more

than 0.4 km (0.25 mi). Conversion costs can be quite high to build

cross-overs where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets,

and to rebuild traffic signals and revise striping, signing, and parking

meters.

One-way streets work best in downtown or very heavily congested areas. One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd-spaced signals; however, signal timing for arterials that cross a

one-way street pair is difficult.

Conversions can go the other way as well: some places are returning

one-way streets back to two-way to allow better local access to businesses and homes and to slow traffic. Two-way streets tend to be

slower due to “friction,” especially on residential streets without a

marked center line and they may also eliminate the potential for multiple-threat crashes that exists on multi-lane, one-way streets.

Cars are forced to drive slowly on this two-way street with parking.

Purpose:

• Manage traffic patterns.

• Reduce conflicts.

• A one-way to two-way conversion will generally reduce

speeds.

Considerations:

• Consider impacts on other

streets.

• Be aware that one-way streets

may decrease automobile

accessibility to businesses.

• Be careful not to create

speeding problems where a

two-way street is changed to

a one-way street. Redesign or

traffic-calming measures may

be required to address this.

• Will improve signal synchronization on the one-way

streets, but will hinder synchronization on cross-streets.

• Generally requires a one-way

pair, with two nearby streets

being converted to one-way.

Estimated Cost:

$12,400 to $124,000 per kilometer ($20,000 to $200,000 per

mile), depending on length of

treatment and whether the conversion requires modification to

signals. If crossovers are needed

at the end points of the oneway streets, they may cost millions of dollars.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

57
14. Curb Radius Reduction

One of the common pedestrian crash types involves a pedestrian who

is struck by a right-turning vehicle at an intersection. A wide curb

radius typically results in high-speed turning movements by motorists.

Reconstructing the turning radius to a tighter turn will reduce turning speeds, shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians, and also

improve sight distance between pedestrians and motorists.

Nearby land uses and types of road users should be considered when

designing an intersection so that curb radii are sized appropriately. If a

curb radius is made too small, large trucks or buses may ride over the

curb, placing pedestrians in danger.

Where there is a parking and/or bicycle lane, curb radii can be even

tighter, because the vehicles will have more room to negotiate the

turn. Curb radii can, in fact, be tighter than any modern guide would

allow: older cities in the Northeast and in Europe frequently have radii

of 0.6 to 1.5 m (2 to 5 ft) without suffering any detrimental effects.

More typically, in new construction, the appropriate turning radius is

about 4.6 m (15 ft) and about 7.6 m (25 ft) for arterial streets with a

substantial volume of turning buses and/or trucks. Tighter turning

radii are particularly important where streets intersect at a skew.While

the corner characterized by an acute angle may require a slightly larger radius to accommodate the turn moves, the corner with an obtuse

angle should be kept very tight, to prevent high-speed turns.

Tight corner radii keep turning vehicle speeds down and minimize crossing distances for pedestrians. This demonstration project uses inexpensive curbing to

reduce the curb radius.

Purpose:

• Safer intersection design.

• Slow right-turning vehicles.

• Reduce crossing distances,

improve visibility between

drivers and pedestrians, and

provide space for accessible

curb ramps.

• Shorter crossing distances can

lead to improved signal timing.

Considerations:

• Consider effective radii by

taking into account parking

and bicycle lanes.

• Make sure that public maintenance vehicles, school

buses, and emergency vehicles

are accommodated.

• Smaller radii reduce overall

crossing distance and reduce

time needed for the pedestrian phase.

Estimated Cost:

Construction costs for reconstructing a tighter turning radii

are approximately $2,000 to

$20,000 per corner, depending

on site conditions (e.g., drainage

and utilities may need to be

relocated).

Photo by Peter Lagerwey

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

58
15. Improved Right-Turn Slip-Lane Design

Intersections should be designed to accommodate safe pedestrian

crossings using tight curb radii, shorter crossing distances, and other

tools as described in this document.While right-turn slip lanes are

generally a negative facility from the pedestrian perspective due to the

emphasis on easy and fast motor vehicle travel, they can be designed

to be less problematic. At many arterial street intersections, pedestrians

have difficulty crossing due to right-turn movements and wide crossing distances.Well-designed right-turn slip lanes provide pedestrian

crossing islands within the intersection and a right-turn lane that is

designed to optimize the right-turning motorist’s view of the pedestrian and of vehicles to their left. Pedestrians are able to cross the

right-turn lane and wait on the refuge island for their walk signal.

The problem for pedestrians is that many slip lanes are designed for

unimpeded vehicular movement. The design of corner islands, lane

width, and curb radii of right-turn slip lanes should discourage highspeed turns, while accommodating large trucks and buses. The triangular “porkchop” corner island that results should have the “tail”

pointing to approaching traffic. Since the traffic signal is timed based

on a shorter crossing, the pedestrian crossing time has a much smaller

influence on the timing of the signal. This design has an additional

advantage for the pedestrian; the crosswalk is located in an area where

the driver is still looking ahead. Older designs place the crosswalk too

far down, where the driver is already looking left for a break in the

traffic. Recommended Design

1mi/h = 1.61 km/h

A slip lane designed at the proper angle, as shown on the right side of intersection, provides the driver with greater visibility of pedestrians. The lane on the left

creates a higher speed, lower visibility right turn.

Purpose:

• Separate right-turning traffic.

• Slow turning-vehicle speeds

and improve safety.

• Allow drivers to see

approaching cross-street traffic more clearly.

• Reduce the crossing distance

for pedestrians.

Considerations:

• Evaluate first whether a slip

lane is really necessary.

Estimated Cost:

Approximately $50,000 to

$200,000 to reconfigure roadway, add striping and constructing an island, assuming additional right-of-way is not required.

High speed, low

visibility, head turner

14 to 18 mi/h,

good visibility

Angle 55-60

degrees

142°

30° 30°

112°

30° 20°

Current AASHTO Standard

Photo by Dan Burden

Sketches by Michael Kimelberg

59

C. Intersection Design

Photo by Dan Burden

61
Purpose:

• Provide good traffic management where the intersection

is large, complex, and/or has

more than four approach legs.

• Replace a traffic signal that is

experiencing heavy traffic

backup and congestion.

• Reduce speeds at intersection.

• Create a gateway into an area.

Considerations:

• Street widths and/or available

right-of-way need to be sufficient to accommodate a

properly designed roundabout.

• Roundabouts have a mixed

record regarding pedestrian

and bicyclist safety — a low

design speed is required.

• Roundabouts are generally

not appropriate for the intersections of multi-lane roads.

• Roundabouts often work best

where there is a high percentage of left-turning traffic.

• Deflection on each leg of the

intersection must be set to

control speeds to 24-29 km/h

(15-18 mi/h).

Estimated Cost:

The cost for a landscaped roundabout varies widely and can

range from $45,000 to $150,000

for neighborhood intersections

and up to $250,000 for arterial

street intersections, not including

additional right-of-way acquisition. Yet, roundabouts have

lower ongoing maintenance costs

than traffic signals. This Fort Pierce, Florida, roundabout is being constructed to reduce speeding,

improve safety, and enhance the aesthetics of the community. 

16. Roundabouts

A modern roundabout is built with a large, often circular, raised island

located at the intersection of an arterial street with one or more crossing roadways and may take the place of a traffic signal. Traffic maneuvers around the circle in a counterclockwise direction, and then turns

right onto the desired street. All traffic yields to motorists in the

roundabout and left-turn movements are eliminated. Unlike a signalized intersection, vehicles generally flow and merge through the

roundabout from each approaching street without having to stop.

Roundabouts need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. It is

important that automobile traffic yields to pedestrians crossing the

roundabout. Splitter islands at the approaches slow vehicles and allow

pedestrians to cross one traffic lane at a time. Single-lane approaches

can be designed to keep speeds down to safer levels and allow pedestrians to cross. Multi-lane approaches have higher speeds, create multiple threats for pedestrians, and are not recommended.

Pedestrians may need to travel out of their way to cross the intersection, but generally have a shorter wait than with a signal and have only

one direction of approaching traffic to watch for.Wayfinding and gapselection cues need to be adequately addressed in the design of roundabouts so that roundabouts are not a barrier to pedestrians with vision

impairments. Accessible pedestrians signals and truncated domes

placed at splitter islands are two possible solutions.

Bicyclists are also disadvantaged by roundabout design. Unless the road

is narrow (one lane in each direction), speeds are slow, and traffic very

light, bicyclists may not be able to share the road comfortably. Marking

bicycle lanes through the roundabout has not been shown to be safer.

In larger roundabouts, an off-road bicycle path may be necessary to

allow cyclists to use the pedestrian route. This is inconvenient and

takes longer but it will improve safety.

Photo by Dan Burden

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg

62
17. Modified T-Intersections

This design treatment is intended for certain T-intersections on lowervolume streets in residential areas where there is a need to reduce the

speeds of through traffic. It involves a gradual curb extension or bulb

at the top of the T, such that vehicles are deflected slightly as they pass

straight through the intersection (see diagram). This type of design

can help to discourage cut-through traffic in a neighborhood and can

reduce speeds at the intersection. If not properly designed, it can create confusion regarding priority of movement. Consider a mini-circle

before installing this treatment.

Purpose:

• Reduce vehicle speeds

through a T-intersection on a

low-volume street.

Considerations:

• Used when vehicle volumes

are low to moderate.

• A mini-traffic circle may

accomplish the same objective and may be less costly

and confusing.

• If designed to eliminate some

turning movements, the

affected neighborhood residents should be consulted for

input and an analysis of traffic

patterns done to ensure that

through traffic would not be

diverted inappropriately.

• Pedestrian access must be

accommodated through the

island.

Estimated Cost:

$20,000 to $60,000, depending

on the design and whether

drainage and utilities need to be

relocated.

This modified T-intersection in Portland, Oregon, is intended to reduce speeds of

through traffic as well as restrict left-turning vehicles.

Photo by Dan Burden

63
18. Intersection Median Barriers

This shortened version of a raised curb median extends through the

intersection to prevent cross-street through movements and left turning movements to cross-streets from the main street.

This treatment can benefit pedestrians who need to cross any leg of

the intersection, but restricts vehicle entry into and out of neighborhoods and can therefore greatly reduce cut-through traffic. However,

since this treatment can dramatically influence traffic patterns and have

potentially negative consequences caused by shifting traffic, it should

be used cautiously. Crossing islands can provide benefits to pedestrians

if that is the desire.This is also a traffic management technique.

Cut-throughs must be incorporated into the design for pedestrian and

bicyclist use.

Purpose:

• Reduce cut-through traffic

on a neighborhood street.

Considerations:

• Local residents need to be

provided access so they do

not have to drive excessive

distances to their homes.

• An analysis of traffic patterns

should be done to ensure that

cut-through traffic would not

be diverted to a nearby street.

• Design should ensure safe and

convenient bicycle and pedestrian access.

• Ensure that emergency access

is not negatively impacted.

Some designs (e.g., high

mountable curbs) may allow

fire truck access, while

inhibiting cars.

Estimated Cost:

$10,000 to $20,000

Intersection median barriers need to keep walking and bicycling flowing freely

through the neighborhood.

Photo by Dan Burden

64
D. Traffic Calming

Traffic calming is a way to

design streets, using physical

measures, to encourage people

to drive more slowly. It creates

physical and visual cues that

induce drivers to travel at slower

speeds. Traffic calming is selfenforcing. The design of the

roadway results in the desired

effect, without relying on compliance with traffic control

devices such as signals, signs, and

without enforcement. While

elements such as landscaping

and lighting do not force a

change in driver behavior, they

can provide the visual cues that

encourage people to drive more

slowly.

The reason traffic calming is

such a powerful and compelling

tool is that it has proven to be

so effective. Some of the effects

of traffic calming, such as fewer

and less severe crashes, are clearly measurable. Others, such as

supporting community livability,

are less tangible, but equally

important.

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Cara Seiderman

65
Experience throughout Europe,Australia, and North America has

shown that traffic calming, if done correctly, reduces traffic speeds, the

number and severity of crashes, and noise level. Research on trafficcalming projects in the United States supports their effectiveness at

decreasing automobile speeds, reducing the numbers of crashes, and

reducing noise levels for specific contexts. Looking at a sample of various speed studies shows that typical speed reductions of 5 to 15 percent at the 85th percentile speed can be realized by the use of trafficcalming measures — including speed tables, mini-circles, speed

humps, and other standard traffic-calming devices.(1) Use of several of

the traffic-calming measures have also resulted in substantial reductions

in motor vehicle crashes. For example, the implementation of traffic

mini-circles in Seattle has resulted in a reduction of approximately 80

percent of intersection accidents.(1)

There are certain overall considerations that are applicable to both

traffic management and traffic calming:

• Vehicle speed is more critical than volume in terms of safety and

should be addressed first where there are monetary constraints.

• Neighborhood involvement is important to successful implementation. Rationale for traffic-calming and management measures

should be explained clearly to community residents and installation

of these treatments should incorporate public input.Please see

Chapter 5: Implementation and Resources for a discussion of public

process.

• Traffic-calming and management measures should fit into, and

preferably enhance, the street environment.

• Traffic-calming designs should be predictable and easy to understand by drivers and other users.

The Institute of Transportation

Engineers has arrived at the

following definition of “traffic

calming,” which is often used in

the United States: 

“Traffic calming” is the combination of mainly physical measures

that reduce the negative effects

of motor vehicle use, alter driver

behavior, and improve conditions

for non-motorized street users.

This midblock crossing is in Kalamazoo, Michigan. The landscaping and textured

crosswalk are visually appealing and provide a clear message about where pedestrians can be expected to cross the street. Photo by Peter Lagerwey

66
Traffic-calming improvements need to

include input from and coordination

with neighborhoods that are impacted.

• Devices that meet multiple goals are usually more acceptable. For

example, a raised crosswalk may be more understandable to

motorists than a speed hump. The former has a clear goal, whereas

the latter may be perceived as a nuisance.

• Treatments need to be well designed and based on current available

information on their applications and effects. Information on U.S.

experiences with various traffic-calming measures can be found in

ITE’s Traffic Calming: State of the Practice.(1)

• Devices should accommodate emergency vehicles.

• Traffic-calming areas or facilities should be adequately signed,

marked, and lit to be visible to motorists.

• Treatments need to be spaced appropriately to have the desired

effect on speed — too far apart and they will have a limited effect,

too close and they will be an unnecessary cost and annoyance.

Devices usually need to be spaced about 91 to 152 m (300 to 500

ft) apart. If they are spaced too far apart, motorists may speed up

between them. This is particularly the case where the devices are

added onto the street (e.g., speed humps).Whole street designs are

usually able to create an environment that supports slower speeds

for the entire length.

• Facilities should not be underdesigned or they will not work.

Keeping the slopes too gradual for a speed table or curves too gentle for a chicane will not solve the problem and will appear as a

waste of money and may ruin chances for future projects.

• Traffic-calming measures should accomodate bicyclists and pedestrians with disabilities.

• If a measure is likely to divert traffic onto another local street, the

areawide street system should be considered so as not to shift the

problem from one place to another.

• Devices should be thought of as elements of a traffic-calming system

and be placed to improve pedestrian conditions throughout an area.

Traffic-calming tools may be used in combination and are often most

effective this way. The tools in this guide are organized into the following categories:

• Roadway narrowing.

• Lateral or horizontal shifts in the roadway.

• Raised devices (vertical devices).

• Complementary tools (landscaping and paving).

• Whole-street designs.

Some tools fall into multiple categories; however, for simplicity, they

are listed only once.

Photo by Dan Burden

67
Trials and Temporary Installations for Traffic Calming

In communities trying traffic calming for the first time, it may be useful to lay out a new design with cones or temporary markings to test

it. This provides emergency vehicle drivers, residents, and others with

an opportunity to test the design to ensure that they are comfortable

with it. Some communities have constructed elaborate temporary

devices with concrete or plastic ("jersey") barriers. These can instill a

negative reaction in the community due to their unaesthetic appearance and they do not generally have any significant benefits over the

simpler test devices. Another option is to install more aesthetic test

devices, such as painted flexible curbs that are bolted into the pavement and can easily be adjusted or removed.

68
Roadway Narrowing19. Curb Extensions

Curb extensions — also known as bulb-outs or neckdowns — extend

the sidewalk or curb line out into the parking lane, which reduces the

effective street width. Curb extensions significantly improve pedestrian

crossings by reducing the pedestrian crossing distance, visually and

physically narrowing the roadway, improving the ability of pedestrians

and motorists to see each other, and reducing the time that pedestrians

are in the street.

Curb extensions placed at an intersection essentially prevent motorists

from parking in or too close to a crosswalk or from blocking a curb

ramp or crosswalk. Motor vehicles parked too close to corners present

a threat to pedestrian safety, since they block sightlines, obscure visibility of pedestrians and other vehicles, and make turning particularly

difficult for emergency vehicles and trucks. Motorists are encouraged

to travel more slowly at intersections or midblock locations with curb

extensions, as the restricted street width sends a visual cue to

motorists. Turning speeds at intersections can be reduced with curb

extensions (curb radii should be as tight as is practicable). Curb extensions also provide additional space for curb ramps and for level sidewalks where existing space is limited.

Curb extensions are only appropriate where there is an on-street parking lane. Curb extensions must not extend into travel lanes, bicycle

lanes, or shoulders (curb extensions should not extend more than 1.8

m (6 ft) from the curb). The turning needs of larger vehicles, such as

school buses, need to be considered in curb extension design.

Purpose:

• Improve safety for pedestrians

and motorists at intersections.

• Increase visibility and reduce

speed of turning vehicles.

• Encourage pedestrians to

cross at designated locations.

• Prevent motor vehicles from

parking at corners.

• Shorten crossing distance and

reduce pedestrian exposure.

Considerations:

• Curb extensions can provide

adequate space on narrow

sidewalks for curb ramps and

landings.

• Curb extensions should only

be used where there is a

parking lane, and where transit and bicyclists would be

traveling outside the curb

edge for the length of the

street.

• Midblock extensions provide

an opportunity to enhance

midblock crossings. Care

should be taken to ensure

that street furniture and landscaping do not block

motorists’ views of pedestrians.

• Where intersections are used

by significant numbers of

trucks or buses, the curb extensions need to be designed

to accommodate them. However, it is important to take

into consideration that those

vehicles should not be going

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

69

This curb extension in Venice, Florida, reduced motorist turning speeds by 9.7 to

12.9 km/h (6 to 8 mi/h). Pedestrian crossing distance and time exposed to traffic

was also reduced.

Photo by Dan Burden
A curb extension on a residential street in Seattle, Washington. In addition to

improving pedestrian safety at this intersection, the extension provides additional sidewalk space for a bicycle rack and accessible curb ramp.

19. Curb Extensions (continued)

at high speeds, and most can

make a tight turn at slow

speeds.

• It is not necessary for a roadway to be designed so that a

vehicle can turn from a curb

lane to a curb lane. Vehicles

can often encroach into adjacent lanes safely where volumes are low and/or speeds

are slow. Speeds should be

slower in a pedestrian environment.

• Emergency access is often

improved through the use of

curb extensions if intersections are kept clear of parked

cars. Fire engines and other

emergency vehicles can climb

a curb where they would not

be able to move a parked car.

At midblock locations, curb

extensions can keep fire

hydrants clear of parked cars

and make them more accessible.

• Curb extensions can create

additional space for curb

ramps, landscaping, and street

furniture that are sensitive to

motorist and pedestrian sightlines; this is especially beneficial where sidewalks are otherwise too narrow.

• Ensure that curb extension

design facilitates adequate

drainage.

Estimated Cost:

Curb extensions cost from

$2,000 to $20,000 per corner,

depending on design and site

conditions. Drainage is usually

the most significant determinant

of cost. If the curb extension

area is large and special pavement and street furnishings and

planting are included, costs

would also be higher. Costs can

go up significantly if something

major, such as a utility pole or

controller box, is moved.

A curb extension on an arterial street in Seattle, Washington. The crossing distance for pedestrians is substantially reduced by the installation of this device.

The extension is limited to 1.8 m (6 ft) to allow bicyclists to pass safely. 

Photo by Peter Lagerwey Photo by Peter Lagerwey

70
20. Chokers

Chokers are curb extensions that narrow a street by widening the

sidewalks or planting strips, effectively creating a pinch point along the

street. Chokers can be created by bringing both curbs in, or they can

be done by more dramatically widening one side at a midblock location. They can also be used at intersections, creating a gateway effect

when entering a street.

Chokers can have a dramatic effect by reducing a two-lane street to

one lane at the choker point (or two narrow lanes), requiring

motorists to yield to each other or slow down. In order for this to

function effectively, the width of the travelway cannot be wide

enough for two cars to pass: 4.9 m (16 ft) is generally effective (and

will allow emergency vehicles to pass unimpeded). This kind of

design is usually only appropriate for low-volume, low-speed streets.

This choker on a two-way roadway in Seattle, Washington, narrows the street

from two lanes to one. Traffic is forced to slow down and, in some cases, wait for

an approaching vehicle to pass before proceeding. 

Purpose:

• Slow vehicles at a mid-point

along the street.

• Create a clear transition

between a commercial and a

residential area.

• Narrow overly wide intersections and midblock areas of

streets.

• Add room along the sidewalk

or planting strip for landscaping or street furniture.

Considerations:

• If two travel lanes are maintained on a two-way street

and/or the travel-lane widths

are unchanged (at the location of the choker), it will

have a minimal effect on

speed.

• Consult with local fire and

sanitation departments before

setting minimum width.

• Ensure that bicyclist safety

and mobility are not diminished.

Estimated Cost:

$5,000 to $20,000, depending

on site conditions and landscaping. Drainage may represent a

significant cost.

Photo by Dan Burden

Adapted from Making Streets That Work,

Seattle, 1996

71
21. Crossing Islands

Crossing islands — also known as center islands, refuge islands, pedestrian islands, or median slow points — are raised islands placed in the

center of the street at intersections or midblock to help protect crossing pedestrians from motor vehicles. Center crossing islands allow

pedestrians to deal with only one direction of traffic at a time, and

they enable them to stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before crossing the second half of the street.Where

midblock or intersection crosswalks are installed at uncontrolled locations (i.e., where no traffic signals or stop signs exist), crossing islands

should be considered as a supplement to the crosswalk. They are also

appropriate at signalized crossings. If there is enough width, center

crossing islands and curb extensions can be used together to create a

highly improved pedestrian crossing. Detectable warnings are needed

at cut-throughs to identify the pedestrian refuge area.

This kind of facility has been demonstrated to significantly decrease

the percentage of pedestrian crashes.(2) The factors contributing to

pedestrian safety include reduced conflicts, reduced vehicle speeds

approaching the island (the approach can be designed to force a

greater slowing of cars, depending on how dramatic the curvature is),

greater attention called to the existence of a pedestrian crossing,

opportunities for additional signage in the middle of the road, and

reduced exposure time for pedestrians.

Curb extensions may be built in conjunction with center crossing islands where there is on-street parking. Care should be taken to maintain bicycle access. Bicycle lanes (or shoulders, or whatever space is

being used for bicycle travel) must not be eliminated or squeezed in

order to create the curb extensions or islands.

Purpose:

• Enhance pedestrian crossings,

particularly at unsignalized

crossing points.

• Reduce vehicle speeds approaching pedestrian crossings.

• Highlight pedestrian crossings.

Considerations:

• Do not squeeze bicycle

access.

• Illuminate or highlight islands

with street lights, signs,

and/or reflectors to ensure

that motorists see them.

• Design islands to accommodate pedestrians in wheelchairs.A cut-through design

such as depicted in the diagram works best if the pedestrian refuge area is identified

by detectable warnings.

• Crossing islands at intersections or near driveways may

affect left-turn access.

Estimated Cost:

Costs range from $4,000 to

$30,000. The cost for an asphalt

island or one without landscaping is less than the cost of

installing a raised concrete

pedestrian island with landscaping.

Crossing islands allow pedestrians to be concerned with one direction of traffic at

a time. The roadway markings in the design shown here also help make motorists

aware that a pedestrian may be crossing.

Photo by Dan Burden

Adapted from Making Streets That Work,Seattle, 1996

72
Lateral/Horizontal Shifts in the Roadway22. Chicanes

Chicanes create a horizontal diversion of traffic and can be gentler or

more restrictive depending on the design.

Diverting the Path of Travel. Shifting a travel lane has an effect on

speeds as long as the taper is not so gradual that motorists can maintain speeds. For traffic calming, the taper lengths may be as much as

half of what is suggested in traditional highway engineering.

Shifts in travelways can be created by shifting parking from one side to

the other (if there is only space for one side of parking) or by building

landscaped islands (islands can also effectively supplement the parking

shift).

Diversion Plus Restriction (Angled Slow Points). Diverting the

path of travel plus restricting the lanes (as described under "Chokers")

usually consists of a series of curb extensions, narrowing the street to

two narrow lanes or one lane at selected points and forcing motorists

to slow down to maneuver between them. Such treatments are intended for use only on residential streets with low traffic volumes.

If there is no restriction (i.e., the number of lanes is maintained), chicanes can be created on streets with higher volumes, such as collectors

or minor arterials.

The chicanes pictured above narrow this residential street to one lane and require

traffic to move slowly. 

Purpose:

• Reduce vehicle speeds.

• Add more green (landscaping) to a street.

Considerations:

• Chicanes may reduce onstreet parking.

• Maintain good visibility by

planting only low shrubs or

trees with high canopies.

• Ensure that bicyclist safety

and mobility are not diminished.

Estimated Cost:

Costs for landscaped chicanes

are approximately $10,000 (for a

set of three chicanes) on an

asphalt street and $15,000 to

$30,000 on a concrete street.

Drainage and utility relocation

often represents the most significant cost consideration.

City of Cambridge, MA

Photo by Peter Lagerwey

73
23. Mini-Circles

Mini-circles are raised circular islands constructed in the center of residential street intersections (generally not intended for use where one

or both streets are arterial streets). They reduce vehicle speeds by forcing motorists to maneuver around them. Mini-circles have been found

to reduce motor vehicle crashes by an average of 90 percent in Seattle,

WA.(3) Drivers making left turns are directed to go on the far side of

the circle (see diagram at right) prior to making the turn. Signs should

be installed directing motorists to proceed around the right side of the

circle before passing through or making a left turn. Mini-circles are

commonly landscaped (bushes, flowers, or grass), most often at locations where the neighborhood has agreed to maintain the plants. In

locations where landscaping is not feasible, traffic circles can be

enhanced through specific pavement materials.

Mini-circles are an intersection improvement as well as a traffic-calming device and can take the place of a signal or four-way stop sign.

Many unwarranted four-way stop signs are installed because of the

demand for action by the community.

Mini-circles must be properly designed to slow vehicles and benefit

pedestrians and bicyclists. Right-turning vehicles are not controlled at

an intersection with a mini-circle, potentially putting pedestrians and

bicyclists at risk. Therefore, short curb radii should complement this

treatment to discourage fast right-turn maneuvers. Traffic circles with

cuts in splitter islands make crossing easier for pedestrians, especially

wheelchair users, and control vehicle movements entering the intersection, but require more space. Pedestrians with vision impairments

will find fewer cues to identify a gap to cross when traffic does not

stop.

The occasional larger vehicle going through an intersection with a

traffic circle (e.g., a fire truck or moving van) can be accommodated

by creating a mountable curb in the outer portion of the circle.

Purpose:

• Manage traffic at intersections

where volumes do not warrant a stop sign or a signal.

• Reduce crash problems at the

intersection of two local

streets.

• Reduce vehicle speeds at the

intersection.

Considerations:

• Do not make generous

allowances for motor vehicles

by increasing the turning

radii — this compromises pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

• Larger vehicles that need

access to streets (e.g., school

buses and fire engines) may

need to make lefthand turns

in front of the circle.

• Use yield, not stop, controls.

• Mini-circle landscaping

should not impede the sight

distance.

• Treat a series of intersections

along a local street as part of

a neighborhood traffic

improvement program.

Estimated Cost:

The cost is approximately

$6,000 for a landscaped traffic

mini-circle on an asphalt street

and about $8,000 to $12,000 for

a landscaped mini-circle on a

concrete street.

A traffic mini-circle helps reduce vehicle speeds, but still allows cars and emergency

vehicles to pass through the intersection with little difficulty.

Adapted from Making Streets That Work,

Seattle, 1996

Photo by Dan Burden

74
24. Speed Humps

25. Speed Tables

Speed humps are paved (usually asphalt) and approximately 76 to 102

mm (3 to 4 in) high at their center, and extend the full width of the

street with height tapering near the drain gutter to allow unimpeded

bicycle travel. Speed humps should not be confused with the speed

"bump" that is often found in mall parking lots.There are several

designs for speed humps. The traditional 3.7-m (12-ft) hump has a

design speed of 24 to 32 km/h (15 to 20 mi/h), a 4.3-m (14-ft) hump

a few miles per hour higher, and a 6.7-m (22-ft) table has a design

speed of 40 to 48 km/h (25 to 30 mi/h). The longer humps are much

gentler for larger vehicles.

A "speed table" is a term used to describe a very long and broad speed

hump, or a flat-topped speed hump, where sometimes a pedestrian

crossing is provided in the flat portion of the speed table. The speed

table can either be parabolic, making it more like a speed hump, or

trapezoidal, which is used more frequently in Europe. Speed tables can

be used in combination with curb extensions where parking exists.

Speed humps are frequently used on some residential streets to reduce speeds.

However, they can create unwanted noise if they are too severe, or cause

motorists to slow down more than is necessary.

Purpose:

• Reduce vehicle speeds.

Raised measures tend to have

the most predictable speed reduction impacts.

• Enhance the pedestrian environment at pedestrian crossings.

Considerations:

• Do not use if on a sharp

curve or if the street is on a

steep grade.

• If the street is a bus route or

primary emergency route, the

design must be coordinated

with operators. Usually, some

devices are acceptable if used

prudently — one device may

be appropriate and may serve

the primary need (e.g., if

there is a particular location

along a street that is most in

need of slowing traffic and

improving pedestrian conditions).

• The aesthetics of speed

humps and speed tables can

be improved through the use

of color and specialized

paving materials.

• Noise may increase, particularly if trucks use the route

regularly.

• May create drainage problems

on some streets.

• Speed humps and tables

should be properly designed

to reduce the chance of back

problems or other physical

discomfort experienced by

vehicle occupants.

Estimated Cost:

The cost for each speed hump is

approximately $1,000. Speed

tables are $2,000 to $15,000,

depending on drainage conditions and materials used.

Photo by Dan Burden

Raised Devices

Photo by Dan Burden

75
A raised pedestrian crossing provides a continuous route for the pedestrian at the

same level as the sidewalk. Pavement markings on the slope (inlay type) make the

crossing visible to motorists.

A raised intersection slows all vehicular movements through the intersection and

improves pedestrian crossings in all directions.

26. Raised Intersections

25. Raised Pedestrian Crossings

A raised intersection is essentially a speed table (see photograph

below) for the entire intersection. Construction involves providing

ramps on each vehicle approach, which elevates the entire intersection

to the level of the sidewalk. They can be built with a variety of materials, including asphalt, concrete, stamped concrete, or pavers. The

crosswalks on each approach are also elevated as part of the treatment

to enable pedestrians to cross the road at the same level as the sidewalk, eliminating the need for curb ramps. Use detectable warnings to

mark the boundary between the sidewalk and the street.

A raised pedestrian crossing is also essentially a speed table, with a flat

portion the width of a crosswalk, usually 3.0 to 4.6 m (10 to 15 ft).

Raised intersections and crosswalks encourage motorists to yield. On

one street in Cambridge, MA, motorists yielding to pedestrians crossing at the raised devices went from approximately 10 percent before

installation of the project to 55 percent after installation.(4)

Purpose:

• Reduce vehicle speeds.

• Enhance the pedestrian environment at the crossings.

Considerations:

• Don’t use if on a sharp curve

or if the street is on a steep

grade.

• May not be appropriate if the

street is a bus route or emergency route. One device may

be necessary and serve the

primary need. Several raised

devices may be disruptive, so

other measures should be

considered.

• Speed tables and raised crosswalks and intersections can be

an urban design element

through the use of special

paving materials.

• Detectable warning strips at

edges enable pedestrians with

vision impairments to detect

the crossing.

• Care must be taken to manage drainage.

Estimated Cost:

Raised crosswalks are approximately $2,000 to $15,000,

depending on drainage conditions and material used. The

cost of a raised intersection is

highly dependent on the size of

the roads.They can cost from

Photo by Cara Seiderman Photo by Cara Seiderman

$25,000 to $75,000.

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg

76
Complementary Tools28. Gateways

A gateway is a physical or geometric landmark that indicates a change

in environment from a higher speed arterial or collector road to a

lower speed residential or commercial district. They often place a

higher emphasis on aesthetics and are frequently used to identify

neighborhood and commercial areas within a larger urban setting.

Gateways may be a combination of street narrowing, medians, signing,

archways, roundabouts, or other identifiable feature. Gateways should

send a clear message to motorists that they have reached a specific

place and must reduce speeds. This can help achieve the goal of meeting expectations and preparing motorists for a different driving environment. Gateways are only an introduction and slower speeds are not

likely to be maintained unless the entire area has been redesigned or

other traffic-calming features are used.

Purpose:

• Create an expectation for

motorists to drive more slowly and watch for pedestrians

when entering a commercial,

business, or residential district

from a higher speed roadway.

• Create a unique image for an

area.

Considerations:

• Traffic-slowing effects will

depend upon the device chosen and the overall trafficcalming plan for the area.

Estimated Cost:

Varies widely depending on the

measures chosen.

The combination of landscaping and a short median create a gateway to this

neighborhood.

City of Cambridge, MA

Photo by Dan Burden

77
Purpose:

• Enhance the street environment.

• Calm traffic by creating a

visual narrowing of the roadway.

Considerations:

• Maintenance must be considered and agreed to up-front,

whether it is the municipality

or the neighborhood residents who will take responsibility for maintenance.

• Shrubs should be low-growing and trees should be

trimmed up to at least 2.4 to

3.0 m (8 to 10 ft) to ensure

that sight distances and head

room are maintained and personal security is not compromised.

• Plants and trees should be

chosen with care to match

the character of the area; be

easily maintained; and not

create other problems, such as

buckling sidewalks.

Estimated Cost:

Opportunities for funding landscaping are often more flexible

than for major street changes.

For example, the cost of the actual landscaping may be paid for

by the corresponding neighborhood or business groups. Often,

municipalities will pay for the

initial installation and homeowners associations, neighborhood residents, or businesses

agree to maintain anything more

elaborate than basic tree landscaping.

29. Landscaping

The careful use of landscaping along a street can provide separation

between motorists and pedestrians, reduce the visual width of the

roadway (which can help to reduce vehicle speeds), and provide a

more pleasant street environment for all. This can include a variety of

trees, bushes, and/or flowerpots, which can be planted in the buffer

area between the sidewalk or walkway and the street.

The most significant issue with any landscaping scheme is ongoing

maintenance. Some communities have managed effectively by creating

homeowners associations to pay for landscape maintenance or through

the volunteer efforts of neighbors. Others have found them to be

unreliable and budget for public maintenance instead. Consider adding

irrigation systems in areas with extensive planting.

Choosing appropriate plants, providing adequate space for maturation,

and preparing the ground can help ensure that they survive with minimal maintenance, and don’t buckle the sidewalks as they mature. The

following guidelines should be considered: plants should be adapted

to the local climate and fit the character of the surrounding area —

they should survive without protection or intensive irrigation; and

plant’s growth patterns should not obscure signs or pedestrians’ and

motorists’ views of each other.

Landscaping with low shrubs, ground cover, and mature trees that are properly

pruned can add shade, color, and visual interest to a street. 

Photo by Dan Burden

78
30. Specific Paving Treatments

Paving materials are important to the function and look of a street,

both in the road and on the sidewalk. Occasionally, paving materials in

and of themselves act as a traffic-calming device (e.g., when the street

is paved in brick or cobblestone). However, some of these materials

may be noisy and unfriendly to bicyclists, pedestrians, wheelchairs, or

snowplow blades. In particular, cobblestones should not be used in the

expected pedestrian or bicycle path, although they may be used as aesthetic elements in a streetscape design. Smooth travel surfaces are best

for all pedestrians.

The pedestrian walkway material should be firm, planar, and slipresistant. Concrete is the preferred walking surface. A different look

can be achieved by using stamped concrete or concrete pavers, which

are available in a variety of colors and shapes; however, jointed surfaces

may induce vibration, which can be painful to some pedestrians. They

can also be used on the top of raised devices.

It is important to ensure crosswalk visibility. High visibility markings

are often best. Textured crosswalks should be marked with reflective

lines since these types of crosswalks are not as visible, especially at

night or on rainy days.

Colored paving can often enhance the function of portions of the

roadway, such as a colored bicycle lane. This can create the perception

of street narrowing, in addition to enhancing the travel facility for

bicyclists.

Brick or cobblestone streets help slow traffic and create a feeling that the street is not

a highway or fast-moving arterial.

Purpose:

• Send a visual cue about the

function of a street.

• Create an aesthetic enhancement of a street.

• Delineate separate space for

pedestrians or bicyclists.

Considerations:

• Slippery surfaces, such as

smooth granite and paint, and

uneven surfaces, such as cobblestones and brick, should

not be used in the primary

pedestrian or bicycle travel

paths. Bumpy surfaces may be

especially uncomfortable for

wheelchair users and a tripping hazard for all pedestrians.

• Coordinate choice and placement of materials with maintenance agencies.

• Design and maintenance must

ensure crosswalk visibility

over time.

• Using materials such as bricks

and cobblestones may

increase the cost of construction and maintenance.

Estimated Cost:

Variable; materials requiring

hand labor (cobblestones or

pavers) have a higher cost.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg 

79
Whole Street Designs

Purpose:

• Change to the entire look of

a street to send a message to

drivers that the road is not for

fast driving.

Considerations:

• Where costs are a concern,

lower cost, equally effective

traffic-calming strategies may

be preferable.

• Most cost-effective to build as

a new street or where a street

will soon undergo major

reconstruction for utility or

other purposes.

Estimated Cost:

The cost can be high ($60,000

to $90,000 per block) to retrofit

a street, but may be no extra to

build a new street with this design if adequate right-of-way is

available.

31. Serpentine Design

Serpentine design refers to the use of a winding street pattern with

built-in visual enhancements through a neighborhood, which allow

for through movement while forcing vehicles to slow. The opportunities for significant landscaping can be used to create a park-like atmosphere.

Such designs are usually implemented with construction of a new

neighborhood street or during reconstruction of an existing street corridor. This type of design can be more expensive than other trafficcalming options and needs to be coordinated with driveway access.

The serpentine street is a curving roadway that helps slow traffic through the use

of curbs and landscaping.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1995

80
32. Woonerf

"Woonerf" ("Street for living") is a Dutch term for a common space

created to be shared by pedestrians, bicyclists, and low-speed motor

vehicles. They are typically narrow streets without curbs and sidewalks, and vehicles are slowed by placing trees, planters, parking areas,

and other obstacles in the street. Motorists become the intruders and

must travel at very low speeds below 16 km/h (10 mi/h). This makes

a street available for public use that is essentially only intended for

local residents. A woonerf identification sign is placed at each street

entrance.

Consideration must be given to provide access by fire trucks, sanitation vehicles and other service vehicles (school buses and street sweepers), if needed.

Purpose:

• Create a very low automobile

volume, primarily on local

access streets.

• Create a public space for

social and possibly commercial activities and play by area

children.

Considerations:

• A woonerf is generally not

appropriate where there is a

need to provide nonresident

motorists with access to services or through travel.

• The design needs to keep

vehicle speeds very low in

order to make the streets safe

for children.

Estimated Cost:

The cost to retrofit a woonerf

may be quite high, but there

would be no extra cost if designed into the original construction.

Motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians share the space on this woonerf or “living

street” in Asheville, North Carolina.

81

Photo by Dan Burden

E. Traffic Management

Although they are sometimes

lumped together, traffic management and traffic calming are different tools and address different

problems. Traffic management

includes the use of traditional

traffic control devices to manage

volumes and routes of traffic.

Traffic calming deals with what

happens to traffic once it is on a

street. For example, limiting

access to a street (e.g., diverting

traffic from entering a street on

one end) may reduce the

amount of traffic on that street,

but will do nothing to affect the

speed of the traffic that travels

on that street or others.Traffic

management and traffic calming

are often complementary, and a

plan to retrofit an area often

includes a variety of tools.

Communities should think

about the broader context of

traffic. If there is too much traffic on any one street, it may be

that there is too much traffic

altogether. A more significant

plan to reduce overall traffic volumes would be appropriate —

encouraging and providing for

alternate modes of travel by

developing pedestrian and bicycling networks, implementing

Transportation Demand

Management, enhancing transit

systems, improving land-use

planning, etc. Comprehensive

traffic reduction or mitigation

strategies are important; however, these are beyond the scope of

this guide. Resources that provide guidance on these issues are

included in the reference section.

Traffic calming and traffic management should be assessed from

an areawide perspective. The

Photo by Michael Cynecki

83
problem should not just be shifted from one street to another.

Although implementation usually occurs in stages, an overall

plan can be developed up-front,

involving a larger neighborhood

or area of the city.

Traffic calming has also helped

reduce motor vehicle traffic volumes and increase walking and

bicycling. For example, on one

traffic-calmed street in Berkeley,

CA, the number of bicyclists

and pedestrians more than doubled after the street was reconstructed with traffic-calming

tools, and motor vehicle volumes decreased by about 20

percent (see Appendix A).

Traffic volume reduction raises

the question:Where does the

traffic go? In the Berkeley case,

traffic volumes on parallel streets

did not account for all of the

traffic that disappeared from the

traffic-calmed street. Ideally, the

reduction in traffic means that

some people chose a different

mode of travel, such as transit,

walking, or bicycling. This is

only feasible if a system is in

place to support those modes.

What is often the case in selective street redesign is that traffic

is routed onto other streets. It is

desirable to keep traffic on collector and arterial streets and off

residential streets. However, in

many communities, arterials are

already over capacity, and alternate routes may also involve

other residential streets.

Traffic management and traffic

calming should involve the

community. Neighborhood participation and the community

involvement process are discussed in Chapter 5.

Photo by Dan Burden

84

This street closure in Charlotte provides needed open space in an urban neighborhood.
33. Diverters

A diverter is an island built at a residential street intersection that prevents certain through and/or turning movements. Diverters affect people living in the neighborhood more than anyone else.Therefore,

diverters should be considered only when less restrictive measures are

not appropriate.

Four types of diverters are: diagonal, star, forced turn, and truncated. A

diagonal diverter breaks up cut-through movements and forces right

or left turns in certain directions. A star diverter consists of a starshaped island placed at the intersection, which forces right turns from

each approach. A truncated diagonal diverter is a diverter with one

end open to allow additional turning movements. Other types of

island diverters can be placed on one or more approach legs to prevent

through and left-turn movements and force vehicles to turn right.

As with other traffic management tools, diverters must be used in conjunction with other traffic management tools within the neighborhood street network. Any of these diverters can be designed for bicycle and pedestrian access.

Purpose:

• Discourage or prevent traffic

from cutting through a

neighborhood.

Considerations:

• Impacts residents more than

through traffic.

• Consider less restrictive measures first.

• Evaluate traffic patterns to

determine whether other

streets would be adversely affected.

• Design diverters to allow

bicycle, pedestrian, and emergency vehicle access. If this

cannot be done and the street

is a major bicycle corridor, a

diverter should not be used.

• Diverters generally do not effectively address midblock

speeding problems.

• Diagonal diverters may be

used in conjunction with

other traffic management

tools and are most effective

when applied to the entire

neighborhood street network.

• Diverters should have strong

neighborhood support.

• The effect of diverters on

service vehicles should be

considered.

Estimated Cost:

$15,000 to $45,000 each,

depending on the type of

diverter and the need to accommodate drainage.

Diagonal Diverter Star Diverter

Truncated Diverter

Forced Turn Diverter

Traffic diverters restrict certain traffic movements and should only be considered

when less restrictive measures are not appropriate.

Photo by Dan Burden

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg

85
34. Full Street Closure

A full street closure is accomplished by installing a physical barrier that

blocks a street to motor vehicle traffic and provides some means for

vehicles to turn around. Full street closures should be used only in the

rarest of circumstances. Neighborhoods with cul-de-sac streets require

extensive out-of-the-way travel, which is not a mere convenience issue, but has serious implications for impacts on other streets. All traffic

is forced to travel on feeder streets, which has negative consequences

for the people who live on those streets and forces higher levels of

control at critical intersections.

If a street closure is done, it should always allow for the free through

movement of all pedestrians, including wheelchair users, and bicyclists.

Emergency vehicles should also be able to access the street; this can be

done with a type of barrier or gate that is electronically operated, permitting only large vehicles to traverse it. Examples are mountable

curbs or an accessway with a raised element in the center that a low

vehicle would hit, though those treatments may not be able to stop

pickups or sport utility vehicles. This is usually only appropriate for

places with no snow (otherwise the device would be covered with

snow and the accessway could not be cleared).

Purpose:

• Ultimate limitation of motor

vehicle traffic to certain

streets.

Considerations:

• Part of an overall traffic management strategy.

• Analyze whether other streets

would receive diverted traffic

as a result of the street closure, and whether alternative

streets exist for through traffic.

• Provide a turnaround area for

motor vehicles, including

service vehicles, and provide

for surface drainage.

• Full street closures may be

considered for local streets,

but are not appropriate for

collector streets.

• Do not use if the street is an

emergency or school bus

route.

• Do not adversely affect access

to destinations in the community by pedestrians and

bicyclists.

• Not an appropriate measure

for addressing crime or other

social problems.

Estimated Cost:

The cost for a full, landscaped

street closure varies from

approximately $30,000 to

$100,000, depending on conditions.

Access is closed on this residential street. 

Photo by Dan Burden

86

Sketch by Yan Jia
35. Partial Street Closure

A partial street closure uses a semi-diverter to physically close or block

one direction of motor vehicle travel into or out of an intersection; it

could also involve blocking one direction of a two-way street. Partial

street closures at the entrance to a neighborhood or area should consider the traffic flow pattern of the surrounding streets as well. The

design of this measure should allow for easy access by bicyclists and all

pedestrians.

A partial closure provides better emergency access than a full closure.

Since this design also allows motorists to easily violate the prohibitions, police enforcement may be required. If the partial closure only

eliminates an entrance to a street, a turnaround is not needed; closing

an exit will generally require a turnaround. Purpose:

• Prevent turns from an arterial

street onto a residential street.

• Reduce cut-through traffic.

• Restrict access to a street

without creating one-way

streets.

Considerations:

• Do not adversely affect access

by service vehicles.

• Analyze whether less restrictive measures would work.

• Analyze whether other local

streets will be adversely

affected and/or access into or

out of the neighborhood

would not be adequate.

• Will create out-of-the-way

travel for residents and put

additional traffic on other

streets.

• Consider impact on school

bus routes, emergency access,

and trash pickup.

• Will not solve speeding

issues; speeds may increase on

the new one-way street.

Estimated Cost:

A well-designed, landscaped partial street closure at an intersection typically costs approximately $10,000 to $25,000.They can

be installed for less if there are

no major drainage issues and

landscaping is minimal.

This partial street closure is found in Phoenix, AZ.

Photo by Mike Cynecki

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

87
36. Pedestrian Streets/Malls

There are two types of pedestrian streets/malls: (1) those that eliminate

motor vehicle traffic (deliveries permitted during off-peak hours) and

(2) those that allow some motor vehicle traffic at very low speeds.

The second type can be thought of as a pedestrian street that allows

some motor vehicles, as opposed to a motor vehicle street that allows

some pedestrians.

Pedestrian streets have been successful in places that are thriving and

have high volumes of pedestrians. Examples of successful pedestrian

streets include Church Street in Burlington,VT; Downtown Crossing

in Boston, MA; Maiden Lane in San Francisco, CA; Occidental Street

in Seattle,WA;Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica, CA; and,

Fremont Street in Las Vegas, NV.

Another option is to create a part-time pedestrian street, as is done, for

example, in the French Quarter in New Orleans, LA, which uses

removable barriers to close the street to motorists at night.

Purpose:

• Create a significant public

space in a downtown district,

a tourist district, or a special

events or marketplace area.

• Enhance the experience for

people in a commercial district.

Considerations:

• Pedestrian streets (those that

eliminate motor vehicles) created with the notion of attracting people in areas that

are on the decline have usually been unsuccessful.

• The pedestrian environment

can often be enhanced

through other measures, including street narrowing/

sidewalk widening and the

addition of landscaping.

Estimated Cost:

A pedestrian street can be created simply by blocking either

end of an existing street with

nothing more than a few signs.

Temporary pedestrian streets can

be created for weekends or holidays. If the street is going to be

a permanent public space, care

should be taken in the design.

Depending on the extent of the

treatment (one block or several

blocks) and the quality of the

materials used, a true pedestrian

street can cost from $100,000 to

several million dollars.

Church Street in Burlington, Vermont, is a successful pedestrian street with market stalls, public art, landscaping, and cafes.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

88
F. Signals and Signs

Photo by Cara Seiderman

89
A traffic signal at a busy intersection with high volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists,

and cars. 

Purpose:

• Provide intervals in a traffic

system where pedestrians can

cross streets safely.

Considerations:

• Where pedestrian traffic is

regular and frequent, pedestrian phases should come up

automatically. Pedestrian

actuation should only be used

when pedestrian crossings are

intermittent.

• Signal cycles should be kept

short (ideally 90 seconds

maximum) to reduce pedestrian delay. Pedestrians are

very sensitive to delays.

• Marked crosswalks at signals

encourage pedestrians to cross

at the signal and discourage

motorists from encroaching

into the crossing area.

Estimated Cost:

$30,000 to $140,000

37. Traffic Signals

Traffic signals create gaps in the traffic flow, allowing pedestrians to

cross the street. They should allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and an adequate clearance interval based upon a maximum

walking speed of 1.1 m/s (3.5 ft/s). In areas where there is a heavy

concentration of the elderly or children, a lower speed of less than 1.1

m/s (3.5 ft/s) should be used in determining pedestrian clearance

time. Signals are particularly important at high-use, mid-block crossings on higher speed roads, multi-lane roads, or at highly congested

intersections. National warrants from the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices are based on the number of pedestrians and vehicles

crossing the intersection, among other factors.(1) However, judgment

must also be used on a case-by-case basis. For example, a requirement

for installing a traffic signal is that there are a certain number of pedestrians present. If a new facility is being built — a park or recreational

path, for example — there will be a new demand, and the signal

should be installed in conjunction with the new facility based on projected crossing demand.There may also be latent demand if a destination is not currently accessible, but could become so with new facilities or redesign.

In downtown areas, signals are often closely spaced, sometimes every

block. Timed sequencing of signals may reduce the amount of time

allotted per cycle for pedestrian crossing to unsafe lengths. Signals are

usually spaced farther apart in suburban or outlying areas, but similar

considerations for pedestrian phasing should be made.When high

pedestrian traffic exists during a majority of the day, fixed-time signals

should be used to consistently allow crossing opportunities. Pedestrian

actuation should only be used when pedestrian crossings are intermittent, and should be made accessible to all pedestrians, including those

with disabilities.

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Barbara Gray

90
38. Pedestrian Signals

Pedestrian signal indications should be used at all traffic signals wherever warranted, according to the MUTCD. The use of

WALK/DON’T WALK pedestrian signal indications at signal locations are important in many cases, including when vehicle signals are

not visible to pedestrians, when signal timing is complex (e.g., there is

a dedicated left-turn signal for motorists, at established school zone

crossings, when an exclusive pedestrian interval is provided, and for

wide streets where pedestrian clearance information is considered

helpful.(1)

The international pedestrian symbol signal is preferable and is recommended in the MUTCD; the WALK and DON’T WALK messages

are allowable alternatives.(1) Pedestrian signals should be clearly visible

to the pedestrian at all times when in the crosswalk or waiting on the

far side of the street. Larger pedestrian signals can be beneficial in

some circumstances (e.g., where the streets are wide). Signals may be

supplemented with audible or other messages to make crossing information accessible for all pedestrians, including those with vision

impairments. The decision to install audible pedestrian signals should

consider the noise impact on the surrounding area.These should be

used judiciously, because they can become a noise problem.

Pedestrian signals (MUTCD)

Purpose:

• Indicate appropriate time for

pedestrians to cross.

• Provide pedestrian clearance

interval.

Considerations:

• Ensure that signals are visible

to pedestrians.

• When possible, provide a

walk interval for every cycle.

• If pedestrian pushbuttons are

used, they must be wellsigned and visible, and within

reach and operable from a flat

surface for all crossing pedestrians.

Estimated Cost:

$20,000 to $40,000

Pedestrian signals should always be clearly visible to the pedestrian while in the

crosswalk and waiting on the far side of the street.

Photo by Robert Schneider

91
Purpose:

• A “Pedestrian Scramble” provides an exclusive pedestrian

crossing phase with no conflicting traffic.

• A short all-red clearance

interval provides a better separation between cars and

pedestrians.

Considerations:

• A “Pedestrian Scramble” usually creates a longer cycle

length and a longer wait

between crossings.

• The Scramble may eliminate

the ability to synchronize

timing at adjacent traffic signals.

• Scramble timing is most

applicable to downtown areas

with high pedestrian volumes

(e.g., more than 1,200 pedestrian crossings per day).

• Scramble timing eliminates

conflicts with turning vehicles if pedestrians and

motorists obey their signals.

• The benefits of this treatment

may not extend to visionimpaired pedestrians.

• Wider intersections require

longer cycle lengths.

• Longer walk or pedestrian

clearance intervals may also

With a leading pedestrian interval, pedestrians get an advance walk signal

before motorists get a green. This gives the pedestrians several seconds to

establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists start to turn.

Photo by Barbara Gray

92

39. Upgrade/Modify Pedestrian Signal Timing

There are several types of signal timing for pedestrian signals, including concurrent, exclusive,“leading pedestrian interval” (LPI), and allred interval. In general, shorter cycle lengths and longer walk intervals

generally provide better service to pedestrians and encourage better

signal compliance. For optimal pedestrian service, fixed-time signal

operation usually works best. Pedestrian pushbuttons may be installed

at locations where pedestrians are expected intermittently. Quick

response to the pushbutton or feedback to the pedestrian should be

programmed into the system.When used, pushbuttons should be wellsigned and within reach and operable from a flat surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs and with visual disabilities. They should be conveniently placed in the area where pedestrians wait to cross.

In addition to concurrent pedestrian signal timing (where motorists

may turn left or right across pedestrians' paths after yielding to pedestrians), exclusive pedestrian intervals (see Traffic Signal Enhancements)

stop traffic in all directions. Exclusive pedestrian timing has been

shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by 50 percent in some downtown

locations with heavy pedestrian volumes and low vehicle speeds and

volumes.(2) With concurrent signals, pedestrians usually have more

crossing opportunities and have to wait less. Unless a system is willing

to take more time from vehicular phases, pedestrians will often have to

wait a long time for an exclusive signal. This is not very pedestrianfriendly, and many pedestrians will simply choose to ignore the signal

and cross if and when there is a gap in traffic, negating the potential

safety benefits of the exclusive signal.(3)

A simple, useful change is the LPI. An LPI gives pedestrians an

advance walk signal before the motorists get a green light, giving the

pedestrian several seconds to start in the crosswalk where there is a

Exclusive walk phase or 

“Pedestrian Scramble”

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg
93

39. Upgrade/Modify Pedestrian Signal Timing (continued)

concurrent signal. This makes pedestrians more visible to motorists

and motorists more likely to yield to them. This advance crossing

phase approach has been used successfully in several places, such as

New York City, for two decades and studies have demonstrated

reduced conflicts for pedestrians.(4) The advance pedestrian phase is

particularly effective where there is a two-lane turning movement. To

be useful to pedestrians with vision impairments, an LPI needs to be

accompanied by an audable signal to indicate the crossing interval.

There are some situations where an exclusive pedestrian phase may be

preferable to an LPI. Exclusive phases are desirable where there are

high-volume turning movements that conflict with the pedestrians

crossing.

The pedestrian has a dedicated walk phase at this intersection of a busy street

and a trail crossing.

The pedestrian has a dedicated walk phase and is allowed to cross diagonally at

this intersection.

Photo by Herman Huang Photo by Herman Huang

lead to longer cycle lengths.

• Use fixed-time operation

unless pedestrian arrivals are

intermittant.

Estimated Cost:

Adjusting signal timing is very

low cost and requires a few

hours of staff time to accomplish. New signal equipment

ranges from $20,000 to

$140,000.
This countdown signal in Cambridge, Massachusetts, indicates to pedestrians the

amount of time they have available to cross.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

94

40. Traffic Signal Enhancements

A variety of traffic signal enhancements that can benefit pedestrians

and bicyclists are available. These include automatic pedestrian detectors, providing larger traffic signals to ensure visibility, placing signals

so that motorists waiting at a red light can’t see the other signals and

anticipate the green, and installing countdown signals to provide

pedestrians with information about the amount of time remaining in a

crossing interval.

Countdown signals may be designed to begin counting down at the

beginning of the walk phase or at the beginning of the clearance

(flashing DON’T WALK) interval.

Since pedestrian pushbutton devices are not activated by about onehalf of pedestrians (even fewer activate them where there are sufficient

motor vehicle gaps), new "intelligent" microwave or infrared pedestrian detectors are now being installed and tested in some U.S. cities.

These automatically activate the red traffic and WALK signals when

pedestrians are detected. Detectors can also be used to extend the

crossing time for slower moving pedestrians in the crosswalk.

Automatic pedestrian detectors have been found to improve pedestrian signal compliance and also reduce pedestrian conflicts with motor

vehicles. However, they are still considered experimental and their reliability may vary under different environmental conditions.(5)

Purpose:

• Improve pedestrian accommodation at signalized crossings.

Considerations:

• Pedestrian signals need to

indicate the crossing interval

by visual, audible, and/or tactile means if pedestrians with

vision impairments are to

take advantage of them.

• The effects of pedestrian

countdown signals on pedestrian safety are not well

known. Further research is

needed to better understand

their effects.

Estimated Cost:

About $5,000 to add new

pedestrian signals and mark

crosswalks.

Illustration by Christian Valiulis

An automated pedestrian

detection system.
Purpose:

• Increase pedestrian safety and

decrease crashes with rightturning vehicles.

Considerations:

• Prohibiting RTOR is a simple, low-cost measure.

Together with a leading

pedestrian interval, the signal

changes can benefit pedestrians with minimal impact on

traffic.

• Part-time RTOR prohibitions during the busiest times

of the day may be sufficient

to address the problem.

• Signs should be clearly visible

to right-turning motorists

stopped in the curb lane at

the crosswalk.

Estimated Cost:

$30 to $150 per NO TURN

ON RED sign plus installation

at $200 per sign. Electronic signs

have higher costs.

41. Right-Turn-on-Red Restrictions

A permissible Right Turn on Red (RTOR) was introduced in the

1970s as a fuel-saving measure and has sometimes had detrimental

effects on pedestrians.While the law requires motorists to come to a

full stop and yield to cross-street traffic and pedestrians prior to turning right on red, many motorists do not fully comply with the regulations, especially at intersections with wide turning radii. Motorists are

so intent on looking for traffic approaching on their left that they may

not be alert to pedestrians approaching on their right. In addition,

motorists usually pull up into the crosswalk to wait for a gap in traffic,

blocking pedestrian crossing movements. In some instances, motorists

simply do not come to a full stop.

One concern that comes up when RTOR is prohibited is that this

may lead to higher right-turn-on-green conflicts when there are concurrent signals. The use of the leading pedestrian interval (LPI) can

usually best address this issue (see Tool #39).Where pedestrian volumes are very high, exclusive pedestrian signals should be considered.

Prohibiting RTOR should be considered where and/or when there

are high pedestrian volumes. This can be done with a simple sign

posting, although there are some options that are more effective than a

standard sign. For example, one option is a larger 762-mm by 914-mm

(30-in by 36-in) NO TURN ON RED sign, which is more conspicuous. For areas where a right turn is acceptable during certain times,

time-of-day restrictions may be appropriate. A variable-message NO

TURN ON RED sign is also an option.(6)

Prohibiting right turns can benefit pedestrian safety at some locations.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

95
Advanced stop lines are used at this signalized crossing to improve sight distances and to give the motorist who initially fails to see the crosswalk more time

to stop. The bicyclist can advance ahead, which aids in bicyclist safety, particularly with right-turning motorists. 

42. Advanced Stop Lines

At signalized intersections and midblock crossings, the vehicle stop

line can be moved farther back from the pedestrian crosswalk for an

improved factor of safety and for improved visibility of pedestrians. In

some places, the stop line has been moved back by 4.6 to 9.1 m (15 to

30 ft) relative to the marked crosswalk with considerable safety benefits for pedestrians. One study found that use of a “Stop Here For

Pedestrians” sign alone reduced conflicts between drivers and pedestrians by 67 percent.With the addition of an advanced stop line, this

type of conflict was reduced by 90 percent compared to baseline levels.(7)

The advanced stop lines allow pedestrians and drivers to have a clearer

view of each other and more time in which to assess each other’s

intentions. The effectiveness of this tool depends upon whether motorists are likely to obey the stop line, which varies from place to

place.

Advanced stop lines are also applicable for non-signalized crosswalks

on multi-lane roads to ensure that drivers in all lanes have a clear view

of a crossing pedestrian.

Purpose:

• Improve visibility of pedestrians to motorists.

• Allow pedestrians to advance

in a crosswalk before motor

vehicles turn.

Considerations:

• Effectiveness depends on

motorist compliance with the

marked stop line.

• If placed too far in advance of

the crosswalk, motorists may

ignore the line.

• In some locations, a wider

crosswalk may be an effective

alternative.

Estimated Cost:

There is no extra cost when the

recessed stop line is installed on

new paving or as part of

repaving projects. A STOP

HERE sign can be used to supplement the recessed stop line.

Photo by Cara Seiderman

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg

96
43. Add/Modify Signing

Signs can provide important information that can improve road safety.

By letting people know what to expect, there is a greater chance that

they will react and behave appropriately. For example, giving motorists

advance warning of an upcoming pedestrian crossing or that they are

entering a traffic-calmed area will alert them to modify their speed.

Sign use and movement should be done judiciously, as overuse breeds

noncompliance and disrespect. Too many signs may also create visual

clutter and signs can get lost.

Regulatory signs, such as STOP, YIELD, or turn restrictions require

certain driver actions and can be enforced.Warning signs can provide

helpful information, especially to motorists and pedestrians unfamiliar

with an area. Some examples of signs that affect pedestrians include

pedestrian warning signs, motorist warning signs, NO TURN ON

RED signs, and guide signs.

Advance pedestrian warning signs should be used where pedestrian

crossings may not be expected by motorists, especially if there are

many motorists who are unfamiliar with the area. A new fluorescent

yellow/green color is approved for pedestrian, bicycle, and school

warning signs. This bright color attracts the attention of drivers because it is unique.

All signs should be periodically checked to make sure that they are in

good condition, free from graffiti, reflective at night, and continue to

serve a purpose. In unusual cases, signs may be used to prohibit pedestrian crossings at an undesirable location and re-route them to a safer

crossing location, or warn pedestrians of unexpected driver maneuvers.

It is preferable to create safe crossings where there are clear pedestrian

destinations. If unexpected driving maneuvers occur at what is an otherwise legal pedestrian crossing, an evaluation should be done to find

ways to remedy or prevent the unsafe motorist maneuvers.

This experimental sign instructs drivers to yield to pedestrians when turning at

this intersection. 

Purpose:

• Provide regulation, warning,

or information to road users

as to what to expect and how

to behave.

Considerations:

• Overuse of signs breeds noncompliance and disrespect.

Too many signs can lead to

visual clutter with the result

that a driver is not likely to

read or pay attention to any

of the signs.

• Traffic signs used on public

property must comply with

the Manual on Uniform Traffic

Control Devices (MUTCD).

• Signs should be checked to

assure adequate nighttime

reflectivity.

Estimated Cost:

$50 to $150 per sign plus installtion costs.

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Photo by Barbara Gray

97
98
G. Other Measures

Photo by Dan Burden

99
44. School Zone Improvements

A variety of roadway improvements may be used to enhance the safety

or mobility of children in school zones. The use of well-trained adult

crossing guards has been found to be one of the most effective measures for assisting children in crossing streets safely.(1) Sidewalks or separated walkways and paths are essential for a safe trip from home to

school on foot or by bike. Adult crossing guards require training and

monitoring and should be equipped with a bright and reflective safety

vest and a STOP paddle. Police enforcement in school zones may be

needed in situations where drivers are speeding or not yielding to

children in crosswalks.

Other helpful measures include parking prohibitions near intersections

and crosswalks near schools; increased child supervision; and the use of

signs and markings, such as the school advance warning sign (which

can be fluorescent yellow/green) and SPEED LIMIT 25 MPH

WHEN FLASHING. Schools should develop "safe routes to school"

plans and work with local agencies to identify and correct problem

areas. Marked crosswalks can help guide children to the best routes to

school. School administrators and parent-teacher organizations need to

educate students and parents about school safety and access to and

from school. Education, enforcement, and well-designed roads must all

be in place to encourage motorists to drive appropriately.

Children leaving school in this Honolulu suburb walk their bikes to the intersection where a crossing guard controls movements.

Purpose:

• Provide enhanced safety

around schools.

Considerations:

• Safety must be a combined

effort between local traffic

officials, police, school officials, parents, and students.

Estimated Cost:

Costs would depend on the

school zone treatment selected.

For example, if signs were chosen, costs might include $50 to

$150 per sign plus installation

costs.

Manual of Uniform TrafficControl Devices (MUTCD)

Photo by Barbara Gray

100
44. School Zone Improvements (continued)

One of the biggest safety hazards around schools is parents or caretakers dropping off and picking up their children. There are two immediate solutions: (1) there needs to be a clearly marked area where parents are permitted to drop off and pick up their children, and (2)

drop-off/pick-up regulations must be provided to parents on the first

day of school. Drop-off areas must be located away from where children on foot cross streets or access the school. Parent drop-off zones

must also be separated from bus drop-off zones. If parents can be

trained to do it right at the start of the school year, they are likely to

continue good behavior throughout the year.

For a longer term solution, it is preferable to create an environment

where children can walk or bicycle safely to school, provided they live

within a suitable distance. One concept that has been successful in

some communities is the concept of a "walking bus," where an adult

accompanies children to school, starting at one location and picking

children up along the way. Soon, a fairly sizeable group of children are

walking in a regular formation, two by two, under the supervision of a

responsible adult, who is mindful of street crossings. The presence of

such groups affects drivers’ behavior, as they tend to be more watchful

of children walking. Parents take turns accompanying the “walking

school bus” in ways that fit their schedules.

Vehicles must slow down to enter the tight curve of this modern roundabout in a

school zone in Montpelier, Vermont. The roundabout creates a safer interaction

between vehicles and pedestrians.

Photo by Dan Burden

101
45. Identify Neighborhood

Many neighborhoods or business districts want to be recognized for

their unique character. This can enhance the walking environment

and sense of community.

Examples of treatments include gateways, traffic calming, welcome

signs, flower planters, banners, decorative street lighting, unique street

name signs, and other details. Neighborhood identity treatments rarely

provide any direct traffic improvements, but they help develop interest

in enhancing the community.

An identity sign in Seattle’s Wallingford neighborhood marks an entry to the area. 

Purpose:

• Increase the visibility of a

neighborhood or district and

support community efforts to

define their neighborhood.

Considerations:

• Supports community efforts,

but has no direct traffic benefits.

Estimated Cost:

$50 to $150 per sign. Some signs

may cost more because they are

usually custom made.

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

Photo by Peter Lagerwey

102
Speed-monitoring trailers let motorists know the speed limit and the speed they

are traveling.

46. Speed-Monitoring Trailer

Speed-monitoring trailers — sign boards on trailers that display the

speed of passing vehicles — are used by police departments and transportation agencies as educational tools that can enhance enforcement

efforts directed at speed compliance. Speed radar trailers are best used

in residential areas and may be used in conjunction with Neighborhood

Speed Watch or other neighborhood safety education programs. They

can help raise residents’ awareness of how they themselves are often

those speeding, not just “outsiders.” Speed trailers are not substitutes

for permanent actions, such as traffic-calming treatments, to address

neighborhood speeding issues.

Speed-monitoring trailers can be used at several locations and should

have occasional police monitoring and enforcement to maintain driver

respect.

Purpose:

• Enhance enforcement efforts

through public education and

awareness.

Considerations:

• Occasional enforcement is

needed to supplement the

speed-monitoring trailers.

• Speed-monitoring trailers are

not a substitute for engineering measures.

• Should not obstruct pedestrian travelway or sightlines.

Estimated Cost:

$10,000 to $15,000 to purchase

the speed-monitoring trailer,

plus the cost to move the trailer

to different locations and to

monitor the trailer.

Photo by Dan Burden

Making Streets That Work, Seattle, 1996

103
47. On-Street Parking Enhancements

On-street parking can be both a benefit and a detriment to pedestrians. On-street parking does increase positive “friction” along a street

and can narrow the effective crossing width, both of which encourages

slower speeds; parking can also provide a buffer between moving

motor vehicle traffic and pedestrians along a sidewalk. In addition,

businesses reliant on on-street parking as opposed to parking lots are

more geared toward pedestrian access. This attention can foster a

more vibrant pedestrian commercial environment.

On the other hand, parking creates a visual barrier between motor vehicle traffic and crossing pedestrians, especially children and people

using wheelchairs. Therefore, where there is parking, curb extensions

should be built where pedestrians cross. Parking needs to be removed

on the approaches to crosswalks.

At least 6 m (20 ft) of parking should be removed on the approach to

a marked or unmarked crosswalk and about 6 m of parking should be

removed downstream from the crosswalk. Some agencies require that

parking be removed 9 to 15 m (30 to 50 ft) from intersections for pedestrian safety reasons.Well-designed curb extensions can reduce these

distances and maximize the number of on-street parking spaces.

Purpose:

• Provide motorist access to

destinations along a street.

• Aid in speed reduction by

increasing friction along the

street.

• Provide a buffer between

sidewalk edge and moving

traffic.

Considerations:

• Parking may take up space

desired for other uses, such as

wider sidewalks or bicycle

lanes.

• Approaches to crosswalks and

intersections should be

cleared and curb extensions

added at crossing locations for

pedestrian safety.

• Parking meters should be

used in downtown areas

where there is a need for

parking turnover. This can

generate revenue for the

community.

Estimated Cost:

$30 to $150 per sign. About

$300 per parking meter and

installation. Curb paint and stall

marks or striping costs are additional (optional).

On-street parking in Concord, Massachusetts, shields pedestrians from moving traffic.

Sketch by Michael Kimelberg

Photo by Cara Seiderman

104
Problem-Solving Methods

Deciding on the set of treatments that will provide the greatest benefits in terms of providing safety and mobility requires transportation

and land-use planners and engineers and community leaders to engage

in problem-solving.

Pedestrians face a variety of challenges when they walk along and

across streets with motor vehicles. Communities are asking for help to

"slow traffic down," "make it safer to cross the street," and "make the

street more inviting to pedestrians." 

The following is a list of requests (objectives) that transportation professionals are likely to face when working to provide pedestrian safety

and mobility:

• Reduce speed of motor vehicles.

• Improve sight distance and visibility for motor vehicles and pedestrians.

• Reduce volume of motor vehicles.

• Reduce exposure time for pedestrians.

• Improve access and mobility for all pedestrians, especially those

with disabilities.

• Encourage walking by improving aesthetics, safety, and security.

• Improve compliance with traffic laws (motorists and pedestrians).

• Eliminate behaviors that lead to crashes (motorists and pedestrians).

Each of these objectives can be accomplished through a variety of the

individual treatments presented in this chapter. Yet, most treatments

will work best when used at multiple locations and in combination

with other treatments.

In addition, many of the treatments will accomplish two or more

objectives. The key is to make sure that the right treatments are chosen to accomplish the desired effect.

The chart located on the following two pages is intended to summarize the uses of the tools presented in this chapter and to assist in the

decision-making process. In using the chart, it is important to remember that it is simply a guide. In all cases, good engineering judgment

should be applied when making decisions about what treatment will

be best for a specific location.

105
Objective A.Pedestrian Facility B. Roadway Design C. Intersection 

Design Design

1. Reduce Speed of • Add Bike Lane/Shoulder • Modern Roundabouts Motor Vehicles • Road Narrowing • Reduce Number of 

Lanes

• Driveway Improvements

• Curb Radius Reduction

• Right-Turn Slip Lane

Use in Conjunction With • Street Furniture

Other Treatments

2. Improve Sight Distance • Crosswalk Enhancements • Add Bike Lane/Shoulder and Visibility for Motor • Roadway Lighting

Vehicles and Pedestrians • Move Poles/Newspaper

Boxes at Street Corners

3. Reduce Volume of • Reduce Number of 

Motor Vehicles Lanes

4. Reduce Exposure for • Overpasses/Underpasses • Road Narrowing Pedestrians • Reduce Number of

Lanes

• Raised Median

• Pedestrian Crossing

Island

5. Improve Pedestrian • Sidewalk/Walkway • Raised Median Access and Mobility • Curb Ramps • Crosswalk

Enhancements

• Transit Stop Treatments

• Overpasses/Underpasses

6. Encourage Walking • Street Furniture • Raised Median by Improving • Roadway Lighting

Aesthetics • Landscaping Options

7. Improve Compliance • Red-Light Cameras With Traffic Laws 

8. Eliminate Behaviors • Red-Light Cameras That Lead to Crashes 

106
107

D.Traffic Calming E.Traffic Management F. Signals and Signs G.Other Measures

• Curb Extension • Signal Enhancement • Speed-Monitoring

• Choker (e.g.,Adjust Signal Trailer 

• Chicane Timing for Motor • School Zone

• Mini-Circle Vehicles) Improvement

• Speed Humps

• Speed Table

• Raised Pedestrian

Crossing

• Raised Intersection

• Driveway Link/Serpentine

• Woonerf

• Landscaping Options • Sign 

• Paving Treatments Improvement

• Curb Extension • Sign

• Speed Table Improvement (e.g.,

• Raised Pedestrian Crossing Warning Sign)

• Raised Intersection • Advanced Stop Lines

• Paving Treatments

• Woonerf • Diverters

• Full Street Closure

• Partial Street Closure

• Pedestrian Street

• Curb Extension • Pedestrian Signal Timing

• Choker • Accessible Pedestrian

• Pedestrian Crossing Island Signal

• Choker • Traffic Signal

• Pedestrian Crossing Island • Signal Enhancement • Accessible Pedestrian

Signal

• Pedestrian Signal Timing

• Gateway • Identify Neighborhood

• Landscaping

• Paving Treatments

• Traffic Calming: • Speed-Monitoring

Choker, Chicane, Mini- Trailer 

Circle, Speed Hump, • Pedestrian/Driver

Speed Table Education • Police Enforcement

• Traffic Calming: • Pedestrian Signal Timing • Pedestrian/Driver 

Choker, Chicane, Mini- Education

Circle, Speed Hump, • Police Enforcement

Speed Table
Chapter 5

Implementation and

Resources

Photo by Cara Seiderman

109
Communities are asking that motor vehicle speeds be reduced on

their neighborhood streets, that streets be made accessible to persons

with disabilities, and that streetscapes be improved to make them more

inviting to pedestrians. Some of the most important issues to the public are safety, access, and aesthetics. This chapter discusses some of the

issues related to setting priorities and implementing needed pedestrian

improvements.

Implementation

A. Getting Started

"Getting started" can be daunting — the needs are overwhelming,

resources are scarce, and staff time is limited. Every community is

faced with the questions of "Where do I start?" and "How do I get

going?" While it is not the intent of this guide to provide an exhaustive discussion of implementation strategies, some direction is useful.

Priorities: Since all pedestrian needs will not be able to be addressed

immediately, project priorities need to be established. To create priorities requires several program objectives:

Safety — One objective should be to reduce the number and

severity of crashes involving pedestrians. To accomplish this will

require: (1) a good understanding of the types of crashes that are

occurring in your community, and (2) application of appropriate

countermeasures to address these crashes. The information provided in this guide is intended to help select the countermeasures

that will be most effective in addressing selected types of crash

problems.

Access — A second objective should be to create an accessible

community where all pedestrians, including those with disabilities,

can reach their desired destinations. Typically, this begins with

being able to walk safely along streets (i.e., sidewalks) and across

streets at intersections and other appropriate locations.

Aesthetics — It is not enough to simply have a safe, accessible

community — it should also be an aesthetically pleasing place to

live and work. Landscaping, lighting, and other pedestrian amenities help create a "livable community" and should be considered

when making pedestrian improvements.

One Step at a Time: To create a safe, walkable community, take one

step at a time. Sidewalks, curb bulbs, and other pedestrian improvements are installed intersection by intersection, block by block.

Individually, they do not create a safe, livable community. Collectively,

they create the infrastructure needed for a great place to work, play,

110

Photos by Dan Burden
and do business. In other words, the whole pedestrian system is greater

than the sum of its parts.

Community Concerns: Be very sensitive to community concerns.

Public participation will build community pride and ownership that is

essential to long-term success. Some of the problems identified in this

guide will not be an issue in your community and some of the tools

may be perceived as too expensive (at least initially). There probably

will be measures that your community puts on hold for a few years

until a community consensus is reached. Conversely, there probably

will be measures that your community would like to pursue that are

not even mentioned in this planning guide.

Deliverables: It is very important to produce immediate deliverables

that people can see. For example, a new section of sidewalk or a freshly painted crosswalk is visible, while a transportation plan is a paper

document that may never be seen or appreciated by the public. To

keep its momentum, a program needs some “quick wins.” They create

the sense that something is happening and that government is responsive.

B. Construction Strategies

There are many ways to accomplish projects. Be creative, take advantage of opportunities as they present themselves. Here are some suggestions:

Regulation of New Development and Redevelopment: Developers

can be required to install public infrastructure such as sidewalks, curb

ramps, and traffic signals. In addition, zoning requirements can be

written to allow for or require narrower streets, shorter blocks, and

mixed-use development. Encouraging developers and community

leaders to focus on basic pedestrian needs will benefit the community

and increase the attractiveness of the developments themselves.

Annual Programs: Consider expanding/initiating annual programs

to make small, visible improvements. Examples include sidewalk

replacement programs, curb-ramp programs, annual tree-planting programs, etc. This creates momentum and community support. Several

considerations should be made when developing these programs:

• Give priority to locations that are used by schoolchildren, the elderly, those with disabilities, and locations that provide access to transit.

• Consider giving preference to requests from neighborhood groups,

especially those that meet other priorities, such as addressing a crash

problem.

• Evaluate your construction options. Consider having city crews do

work requested by citizens to provide fast customer service while

bidding out some of the staff-generated projects.

111
Capital Projects: "Piggybacking" pedestrian improvements onto capital projects is one of the best ways to make major improvements in a

community. Sidewalks, pedestrian ramps, landscaping, lighting, and

other amenities can be included in road projects, utility projects, and

private construction in public rights-of-way (e.g., cable television,

high-speed fiber optics, etc.). To accomplish this, there are several

things that can be done:

• Contact all State and regional agencies, and local public and private

utilities that do work in public rights-of-way. Secure their 5-year

project plans as well as their long-range plans. Then, work with

them to make sure that the streets are restored in the way that

works for your city.

• Look internally at all capital projects. Make sure that every opportunity to make improvements is taken advantage of at the time of

construction.

• Consider combining small projects with larger capital projects as a

way of saving money. Generally, bid prices drop as quantities

increase.

Public/Private Partnerships: Increasingly, public improvements are

realized through public/private partnerships. These partnerships can

take many forms. Examples include: Community Development

Corporations, neighborhood organizations, grants from foundations,

direct industry support, and involvement of individual citizens. In fact,

many public projects, whether they are traffic-calming improvements,

street trees, or the restoration of historic buildings, are the result of

individual people getting involved and deciding to make a difference.

This involvement doesn’t just happen, it needs to be encouraged and

supported by local governmental authorities.

C. Funding

Pedestrian projects and programs can be funded by federal, State, local,

private, or any combination of sources. A summary of federal pedestrian funding opportunities can be viewed at www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikpedtr.htm. Communities that are most successful at securing funds often have the following ingredients of success:

Consensus on Priorities: Community consensus on what should be

accomplished increases the likelihood of successfully funding a project.

A divided or uninvolved community will find it more difficult to raise

funds than a community that gives broad support to pedestrian

improvement programs.

Dedication: Funding a project is hard work; usually, there are no

shortcuts. It usually takes a great amount of effort by many people

using multiple funding sources to complete a project successfully. Be

aggressive, apply for many different community grants. While professional grant-writing specialists can help, they are no substitute for 

112
community involvement and one-on-one contact (the "people part"

of fund raising).

Spark Plugs (Change Agents): Successful projects typically have

one or more "can do" people in the right place at the right time, who

provide the energy and vision to see a project through. Many successful "can do" politicians get their start as successful neighborhood

activists.

Leveraging: Funds, once secured, should always be used to leverage

additional funds. For example, a grant from a local foundation could

be used as the required match for a Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century (TEA-21) Enhancement grant.

113

D. Other Resources

There are many other good resources on planning, funding, and implementing programs to increase

pedestrian safety and mobility. Some of these resources are listed below:

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the Development

of Bicycle Facilities, Washington, DC, 1999.

American Planning Association, Bicycle Facility Planning, Planning Advisory Service Report 459, Chicago,

IL, 1995.

Appleyard, Donald, Livable Streets, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.

Bentzen, B.L. and L.Tabor, Accessible Pedestrian Signals, U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers

Compliance Board (Access Board),Washington, DC, 1998.

Bentzen, B.L., J.M. Barlow, and L.S.Tabor, Detectable Warnings: Synthesis of U.S. and International Practice, U.S.

Access Board,Washington, DC, 2000.

Brookline Transportation Department, Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for Residential Streets, Town of

Brookline, MA, 1996.

Burden, Dan, Walkable and Bicycle-Friendly Communities, Florida Dept. of Transportation, 1996.

Burrington, Stephen H., "Restoring the Rule of Law and Respect for Communities in Transportation,"

Environmental Law Journal, Volume 5, No. 3, New York University, 1996.

CART — Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, Traffic Calming — The Solution to Urban Traffic

and a New Vision for Neighborhood Livability, Ashgrove, Australia, 1989 (reprinted by Sensible Transportation

Options for People (STOP), Oregon, 1993).

Conservation Law Foundation, City Routes, City Rights: Building Livable Neighborhoods and Environmental

Justice by Fixing Transportation, June 1998.

Conservation Law Foundation, Road Kill: How Solo Driving Runs Down the Economy, May 1994.

Conservation Law Foundation, Take Back Your Streets: How to Protect Communities From Asphalt and Traffic,

May 1995.

County Surveyors Society, Traffic Calming in Practice, Landor Publishing Ltd., 1994.
Delft Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Cities Make Room for Cyclists, Delft,The

Netherlands, August 1995.

Denmark Ministry of Transport, Bicycle Markings: Safety Effects at Signalized Intersections, Traffic Safety and

Environment, Road Directorate, 1996.

Denmark Ministry of Transport, An Improved Traffic Environment:A Catalogue of Ideas, Traffic Safety and

Environment, Road Directorate, 1993.

Denmark Ministry of Transport, Safety of Cyclists in Urban Areas: Danish Experiences, Traffic Safety and

Environment, Road Directorate, 1994.

Denmark Ministry of Transport, Speed Management: National Practice and Experiences in Denmark,The

Netherlands, and in the United Kingdom, Report No. 167,Traffic Safety and Environment, Road Directorate,

1999.

Denmark Ministry of Transport, The Traffic Safety Effects of Bicycle Lanes in Urban Areas, Traffic Safety and

Environment, Road Directorate, 1996.

Devon County Council Engineering and Planning, Traffic-Calming Guidelines, Great Britain, 1991.

Dutch Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering, Sign Up for the

Bike: Design Manual for a Cycle-Friendly Infrastructure, The Netherlands, September 1994.

Engwicht, David, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living With Less Traffic, New Society Publishers,

Philadelphia, PA, 1993.

Environmental Working Group, Bicycle Federation of American and Surface Transportation Policy Project,

Share the Road: Let’s Make America Bicycle Friendly, May 1997.

Federal Highway Administration, Bicycle Safety-Related Research Synthesis, Washington, DC, April 1995.

Federal Highway Administration, Bicycling & Walking in the Nineties and Beyond: Applying the Scandinavian

Experience to America's Challenge, Washington, DC, November 1994.

Federal Highway Administration, Flexibility in Highway Design, Washington, DC, 1997.

Federal Highway Administration, The National Bicycling and Walking Study: Transportation Choices for a

Changing America, Final Report and 24 Case Studies, Washington, DC, 1994. [Especially Case Study No. 19,

"Traffic Calming,Auto-Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management Techniques."] 

Federal Highway Administration, Safety Effectiveness of Highway Design Features,Volume VI: Pedestrians and

Bicyclists, Washington, DC, 1991.

Federal Highway Administration, Study Tour Report for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany, and

the Netherlands, Washington, DC, October 1994.

Gehl, Jan, Life Between Buildings,Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York, 1987.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Journal, Volume 67, No. 7, July 1997.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Journal, Volume 67, No. 8,August 1997.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Wolfgang Hamburger et

al.,Washington, DC, 1989.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, The Traffic Safety ToolBox: A Primer on Traffic Safety, Washington, DC,

1994.

114
ITE Traffic Engineering Council Speed Humps Task Force, Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed

Humps, Washington, DC, 1997.

Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Calming State of the

Art, Washington, DC, August 1999.

ITE Transportation Planning Council Committee, Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design

Guidelines, Washington, DC, 1997.

Jacobs,Allan, Great Streets, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1994.

National Highway Institute, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation,

Publication No. FHWA-HI-96-028, May 1996.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, updated yearly.

Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1995.

Rodale Press, Inc., Pathways for People, June 1992.

Route 50 Corridor Coalition, A Traffic-Calming Plan for Virginia’s Rural Route 50 Corridor, Middleburg,VA,

1996.

Seiderman, Cara,“Traveling at the Speed of Life,” In Conservation Matters No. 4 (Autumn 1997) pp. 20-23.

Standards Association of Australia, Australian Standard: Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices, Part 13: Local

Area Traffic Management, North Sydney,Australia, 1991.

Transportation Association of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers, Canadian

Guide to Neighbourhood Traffic Calming, December 1998.

U.S.Access Board, Accessible Rights-of-Way:A Design Guide, Washington, DC, 1998.

U.S. Department of Transportation and Rails to Trails Conservancy, Improving Conditions for Bicycling and

Walking:A Best Practices Report, January 1998.

Whyte,William H., City: Rediscovering the Center, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1988.

Resources on the World Wide Web

There are dozens of websites that contain information on pedestrian safety and mobility. About 75 of

these sites (with hot links) may be found through the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC)

at the following address:

www.walkinginfo.org

The links on the PBIC website are organized by category (e.g., government agencies and offices, professional organizations), and are as follows:

Government Agencies and Offices

Danish Road Directorate

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

FHWA Office of Highway Safety

FHWA/NHTSA National Crash Analysis Center 

115
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

Transportation Association of Canada

U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board)

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT)

Government Programs and Initiatives

FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Page

NHTSA National Child Passenger Safety Week Walkability Checklist

NHTSA Pedestrians, Bicycles, and Motorcycles Page

Office of Highway Safety Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety Program

Pedestrian Safety Roadshow

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)

Professional Organizations

America Walks Checklist

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

American Planning Association (APA)

American Public Works Association

American Traffic Safety Services Association

Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals (APBP)

Bicycle Federation of America/National Center for Bicycling and Walking

Human-Powered Transportation Committee of the American Society of Civil Engineers

Institute of Transportation Engineers

League of American Bicyclists

National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse

National Safety Council

National Safety Council Highway Traffic Division

National Safety Council Partnership for a Walkable America

Transportation Research Board

Other Organizations (Including Advocacy Organizations)

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 

America WALKs

American Council of the Blind — Pedestrian Safety

Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute

Better Environmentally Sound Transportation

Chainguard — Bicycle Advocacy Online

Coalition for Alternative Transportation

Conservation Law Foundation

List of Pedestrian Associations

Massachusetts Bicycle Coalition

National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

Partnership for a Walkable America

Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety, Inc. (PEDS)

116
Rails to Trails Conservancy

Roundabout Traffic Control Information Center

Surface Transportation Policy Project

Transportation Action Network (TransAct)

Transportation Alternatives Citizens Group (New York City Area)

Travis County (Austin,TX) SuperCyclist Project

Tri-State Transportation Campaign (New York/New Jersey/Connecticut)

Vermont Bicycle and Pedestrian Coalition

Victoria Policy Institute

WALK Austin

Walkable Communities, Inc.

Local/State Sites

City of Boulder, CO,Transportation Planning

City of Cambridge, MA, Environmental and Transportation Division

City of Portland, OR, Pedestrian Transportation Program

City of Tallahassee, FL, Bike and Pedestrian Program

Florida Department of Transportation Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program

Montgomery County, MD, Residential Traffic-Calming Program

New York City Department of Transportation Pedestrian Information

Oregon Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Program

St. Louis Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee

Wisconsin Department of Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Information

Pedestrian and Bicycle Link Pages

Bicycle advocacy websites provided by Chainguard

Bicycle education and safety sites provided by Chainguard

Bicycling organizations and resources provided by Bicycles, Inc.

Bicycling sites provided by Cyber Cyclery

Government sites for bicycle issues provided by Chainguard

Pedestrian and bicycle sites provided by TransAct

Pedestrian issues and organization provided by PEDS

State bicycle laws provided by Bicycle Coalition of Massachusetts

Pedestrian and Bicycle Studies and Statistics

Bike Plan Source Hot Topics provided by Tracy-Williams Consulting

BTS National Transportation Library Links to Pedestrian Transportation Research

BTS National Transportation Library Links to Bicycle Transportation Research

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Consumer Product Safety Commission Recreational Safety Publications

National Bicycling and Walking Study Five-Year Status Report

Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey

Northwestern University Traffic Institute

PedSMART — Application ITS Technology to Pedestrian Safety

University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center

117
References

Chapter 1 — The Big Picture

1. United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 1995 Nationwide 

Personal Transportation Survey.

2. Appleyard, Donald, Livable Streets, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.

3. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,

Washington, DC, October 1988.

4. Axelson, P. et al., Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Federal Highway Administration,Washington,

DC, July 1999.

Chapter 2 — Pedestrian Crash Factors

1. Zegeer, C.V. and C.B. Seiderman, "Designing for Pedestrians," Chapter 19, Traffic Safety Toolbox – 

A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

2. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, Washington, DC, 1999.

3. Zegeer, C., J. Stutts, H. Huang, M. Zhou, and E. Rodgman, Analysis of Elderly Pedestrian 

Accidents and Recommended Countermeasures, Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1993.

4. Campbell, B., C. Zegeer, H. Huang, and M. Cynecki, Pedestrian Safety Research in the U.S., Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, October 1999.

5. Williams,A. and A. Lund, "Alcohol Impaired Driving and Crashes Involving Alcohol in the United

States During the 1970s and 1980s," Paper presented at the 11th International Conference on

Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety, Chicago, Illinois, National Safety Council, 1990.

6. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatal Accident Reporting System 1989 — A Decade of

Progress, Washington, DC, 1990.

7. U.K. Department of Transportation, Killing Speed and Saving Lives, London, 1987.

8. Zegeer, C., J. Stutts, and W. Hunter, Pedestrian and Bicycle,Volume VI: Safety Effectiveness of Highway

Design Features, Report No. FHWA-RD-91-049, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC,

November 1992.

9. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, General Estimates System 1989 — A Review of

Information on Police-Reported Traffic Crashes in the United States, Washington, DC, 1990.

10. National Safety Council, Accident Facts, Washington, DC, 1988.

11. Snyder, M., and R. Knoblauch, Pedestrian Safety: The Identification of Precipitating Factors and Possible

Countermeasures (2 Vols.), Report No. DOT-HS-800-403, NHTSA,Washington, DC, January 1971.

12. Knoblauch, R.,W. Moore, Jr., and P. Schmitz, Pedestrian Accidents Occurring on Freeways:An 

Investigation of Causative Factors,Accident Data, Report No. FHWA-RD-78-159/171, Federal Highway

Administration,Washington, DC, 1978.

13. Knoblauch, R., Causative Factors and Countermeasures for Rural and Suburban Pedestrian Accidents:Accident

Data Collection and Analyses, Report No. DOT HS-802-266, NHTSA,Washington, DC, June 1977.

14. Hunter,W., J. Stutts,W. Pein, and C. Cox, Pedestrians and Bicycle Crash Types of the Early 1990s, Report

No. FHWA-RD-95-163, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, June 1996.

118
Chapter 3 – Selecting Pedestrian Safety Improvements

1. Zegeer, C. and C. Seiderman, "Designing for Pedestrians," Chapter 19, The Traffic Safety Toolbox 

— A Primer on Traffic Safety, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

2. Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer, Pedestrians and Traffic Control Measures, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway

Practice No. 139, Transportation Research Board, November 1988.

3. Zegeer, C., "Engineering and Physical Measures to Improve Pedestrian Safety," in Effective Highway

Accident Countermeasures, U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC, August 1990.

4. Zegeer, C. and S. Zegeer., "Engineering: Designing a Safer Walking Environment," Traffic Safety,Vol.

88, No. 1 (January/February 1988).

Chapter 4A – Pedestrian Facility Design

1. Campbell, B., C. Zegeer, H. Huang, and M. Cynecki, Pedestrian Safety Research in the U.S., Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, October 1999.

2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Fatalities, March 1998.

3. Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and

Highways, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1988.

4. Zegeer, C., J. Stuart, and H. Huang, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled

Crossing Locations, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 2001.

5. Moore, R.I. and S.J. Older, "Pedestrians and Motorists Are Compatible in Today’s World," Traffic

Engineering, Institute of Transportation Engineers,Washington, DC, September 1965.

6. Bowman, B.L., J.J. Fruin, and C.V. Zegeer, Planning, Design, and Maintenance of Pedestrian Facilities,

Report No. FHWA-IP-88-019, Federal Highway Administration, October 1988.

Allos,A.E.,“Usage of Pedestrian Footbridges," Traffic Engineering and Control, Great Britain, May 1983.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, Washington, DC, 1990.

Axler, E.A.,Warrants for Pedestrian Over and Underpasses, Report No. FHWA/RD-84-082, Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, July 1984.

Berger,W.G., Urban Pedestrian Accident Countermeasures Experimental Evaluation,Volume 1: Behavioral

Evaluation Studies, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highway

Administration, February 1975.

Bowman, B.L., J. Fruin, and C.V. Zegeer, Handbook on Planning, Design and Maintenance of Pedestrian

Facilities, Federal Highway Administration, March 1989.

Braun, R.R. and M.F. Roddin, Quantifying the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehicles, NCHRP

No. 189,Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1978.

City of Long Beach Crosswalk and Pedestrian Safety Study Final Report, Willdan and Associates, Industry,

California, February 1986.

Federal Register, Part IV, Volume 58, No. 173, Department of Transportation, September 6, 1991.

Fitzpatrick, K., K. Hall, D. Perkinson, R.L. Nowlin, and R. Koppa, Guidelines for the Location and Design

of Bus Stops, TCRP Report 19, 1996.

Florida Department of Transportation, Recommended Design Standards for the Florida Pedestrian Design

Standards Development Study: Policy Report, March 1988.

119
Herms, B.F., Pedestrian Crosswalk Study: Accidents in Painted and Unpainted Crosswalks, (HRR 406),

Highway Research Board,Washington, DC, 1972.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design (ITE recommended practice),Washington, DC, 1993.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design (ITE recommended practice),Washington, DC, 1984.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Pedestrian Overcrossings — Criteria and Priorities (Technical

Committee Report 4EA), October 1972.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineering Handbook, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Second Edition,

1982.

Knoblauch, R.L., Urban Pedestrian Accident Countermeasures Experimental Evaluation,Volume II: Accident

Studies, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Federal Highway Administration,

February 1975.

Knoblauch, R.L. and K.L. Crigler, Model Pedestrian Safety Program User’s Guide Supplement, Federal

Highway Administration, July 1987.

Knoblauch, R.L., B.H.Tustin, S.A. Smith, and M.T. Pietrucha, Investigation of Exposure-Based Pedestrian

Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets and Major Arterials, Report No. FHWA/RD-88/038, Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, September 1988.

Lindley, J.A., A Method for Evaluating the Feasibility of Grade-Separated Pedestrian Crossings, 1986 Annual

TRB Meeting,Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC.

Prokopy, J.C., A Manual for Planning Pedestrian Facilities, Report No. DOT-FHWA-74-5, Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, June 1974.

Richter, R.A. and C.L. King, Guidelines for Making Crossing Structures Accessible — An Implementation

Manual, Report No. FWHA/IP-84/6, U.S. Department of Transportation,Washington, DC,August

1980.

Rodding, M.F., A Manual to Determine the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehicles, NCHRP Report

No. 240,Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, November 1981.

Smith, S.A. and R.L. Knoblauch, Guidelines for the Installation of Crosswalk Markings, (TRR 1141),

Transportation Research Board,Washington, DC, 1987.

Van Der Boordt, D.J., "Underpasses for Pedestrians and Cyclists — User Requirements and

Implications for Design,"Transportation Planning and Technology,Vol. 8, 1983.

Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer, Pedestrians and Traffic Control Measures, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway

Practice No. 139, Transportation Research Board, November 1988.

Chapter 4B – Roadway Design

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Guide for the

Development of Bicycle Facilities, Washington, DC, 1999.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, Washington, DC, 1994.

Federal Highway Administration, Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part I, Washington, DC, 1999.

Federal Highway Administration, Older Pedestrian Characteristics for Use in Highway Design, Report No.

FHWA-RD-93-177,Washington, DC, 1993.

120
Federal Highway Administration, Priorities and Guidelines for Providing Places for Pedestrian to Walk Along

Streets and Highways, Washington, DC, September 15, 1999 (draft).

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Guidelines for Residential Subdivision Street Design:An ITE

Recommended Practice, Washington, DC, 1993.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Guidelines for Urban Major Street Design:An ITE Recommended

Practice, Washington, DC, 1984.

ITE Transportation Planning Council Committee, Traditional Neighborhood Development: Street Design

Guidelines, 1997.

Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, 1995.

Untermann, Richard K., Accommodating the Pedestrian,Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, Inc., New

York, 1984.

U.S.Access Board and Federal Highway Administration, Accessible Rights-of-Way:A Design Guide,

Washington, DC, November 1999.

U.S.Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (The Access Board), Accessible Rightsof-Way:A Design Guide (draft),Washington, DC, May 1999.

Zegeer, C., J. Stutts, and W. Hunter, Pedestrian and Bicyclists,Volume VI: Safety Effectiveness of Highway

Design Features, Report No. FHWA-RD-91-049, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC,

November 1992.

Chapter 4C – Intersection Design

Bentzen, B. and L.Tabor, Accessible Pedestrian Signals, Publication A37, U.S.Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,Washington, DC,August, 1998.

Bowman, B.L., J.J. Fruin, and C.V. Zegeer, Handbook on Planning, Design, and Maintenance of Pedestrian

Facilities, Report No. FHWA-IP-88-019, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, March

1989.

Zegeer, C.V. and M.J. Cynecki, Methods of Increasing Pedestrian Safety at Right-Turn-on-Red Intersections,

Report No. FHWA/RD-85/047, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, March 1985.

Zegeer, C.V., K.S. Opiela, and M.J. Cynecki, Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives, Report No.

FHWA/RD-83-102, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1983.

Van Houten, Ron et al., Field Evaluation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban

Intersections, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,Arlington,VA, April 1997.

Van Houten, Ron et al., Use of Animation in LED Pedestrian Signals to Improve Pedestrian Safety,

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety,Arlington,VA, 1998.

Chapter 4D – Traffic Calming

1. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, August 1999.

2. Zegeer, C.V., J.Stuart, and H. Huang, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled

Crossing Locations, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1999.

3. Institute of Transportation Engineers and the Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Calming State of

the Art, August 1999.

4. City of Cambridge, MA, Preliminary Results: Effects of Columbia Street Traffic Calming Project on Driver

121
Behavior, April 2000.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on the Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, Washington, DC, 1990.

Appleyard, Donald, Livable Streets, University of California Press, Berkeley, 1981.

Beukers, B., P. Bosselmann, E. Deakin,W. Nomburger, and P. Smith, Residential Street Design and Traffic

Control, Review Draft, Institute of Transportation Engineers, July 1986.

Bowman, B.L. and R.L.Vecellio, Investigation of the Impact of Medians on Road Users, Report No.

FHWA-RD-93-130, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1993.

CART – Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, Traffic Calming – The Solution to Urban Traffic

and a New Vision for Neighborhood Livability, Ashgrove,Australia, 1989 (reprinted by Sensible

Transportation Options for People (STOP), Oregon, 1993).

Clarke,A. and Dornfeld, M., National Bicycle and Walking Study: Case Study 19: Traffic Calming, Report

No. PD-93-028, Federal Highway Administration, January 1994.

County Surveyors Society, Traffic Calming in Practice, Landor Publishing Ltd., 1994.

Denmark Ministry of Transport,Traffic Safety and Environment, Road Directorate, Pedestrian Safety:

Analyses and Safety Measures, Report No. 148, 1998.

Devon County Council Engineering & Planning, Traffic Calming Guidelines, Great Britain, 1991.

Engwicht, David, Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns: Better Living With Less Traffic, New Society

Publishers, Philadelphia, PA, 1993.

Ewing, R. and C. Kooshian, "U.S. Experience With Traffic Calming," ITE Journal, August 1997, pp.

28-33.

Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,

1988.

Federal Highway Administration,Traffic Calming,Auto-Restricted Zones and Other Traffic Management

Techniques – Their Effect on Bicycling and Pedestrians, National Bicycling and Walking Study – Case Study No.

19, 1994.

Hamburger,W. et al., Residential Street Design and Traffic Control, Institute of Transportation Engineers,

1989.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Journal,Volume 67, No. 8, August 1997.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, ITE Journal,Volume 67, No. 7, July 1997.

ITE Traffic Engineering Council Speed Humps Task Force, Guidelines for the Design and Application of

Speed Humps, 1997.

Leonard, J. and J. Davis, "Urban Traffic Calming Treatments: Performance Measures and Design

Conformance," ITE Journal, August 1997, pp. 34-39.

Portland Bureau of Traffic Management, Reclaiming Our Streets: A Community Action Plan, Portland,

Oregon, February 1993.

Seattle Engineering Department, "Neighborhood Traffic Circles" (video), Seattle,WA, 1991.

Skene, M., G. Chartier, D. Erickson, G. Mack, and R. Drdul, "Developing a Canadian Guide to Traffic

Calming," ITE Journal, July 1997, pp. 34-36.

Smith, D.T. and D.Appleyard, State of the Art Report: Residential Traffic Management, Report No. FHWARD-80/092, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, December 1980.

Spielberg, P., Traffic Engineering for Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Design, ITE Technical Committee 5P-8,

ITE,Washington, DC, February 1994.

122
Szplett, D. and L. Sale, "Some Challenges in Developing Neo-Traditional Neighborhood Designs,"

ITE Journal, July 1997, pp 42-45.

The Traffic Institute, Urban Street Design Workshop, Northwestern University, May 1988.

Transportation Association of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers,

Canadian Guide to Neighborhood Traffic Calming, December 1998.

Transportation Research Board, "Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and

Developing Rural Areas," National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 294A,Washington,

DC, June 1987.

Zein, Sany R. et al., "Safety Benefits of Traffic Calming," Transportation Research Board 76th Annual

Meeting, January 1997.

Zegeer, C., M. Cynecki, J. Fegan, B. Gilleran, P. Lagerwey, C.Tan, and B.Works, FHWA Study Tour for

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany and the Netherlands, Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC, October 1994.

Chapter 4E – Traffic Management

Denmark Ministry of Transport,Traffic Safety and Environment, Road Directorate, Speed Management:

National Practice and Experiences in Denmark, the Netherlands and in the United Kingdom, Report No. 167,

1999.

Smith, D. et al., State-of-the-Art Residential Traffic Management, Report No. FHW-RD-80-092, Federal

Highway Administration,Washington, DC, December 1980.

Chapter 4F – Signals and Signs

1. Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,

Washington, DC, 1988.

2. Zegeer, C.V., K.S. Opiela, and M.J. Cynecki, Pedestrian Signalization Alternatives, Report No.

FHWA/RD-83-102, Federal Highway Safety Administration,Washington, DC, 1983.

3. Van Houten, Ron et al., Field Evaluation of a Leading Pedestrian Interval Signal Phase at Three Urban

Intersections, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington,VA,April 1997.

4. Van Houten, Ron et al., Use of Animation in LED Pedestrian Signals to Improve Pedestrian Safety,

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington,VA, 1998.

5. Hughes, Ronald, H. Huang, C.V. Zegeer, and M. Cynecki, Evaluation of Automated Pedestrian Detection

at Signalized Intersections, Report No. FHWA/RD-00/097, Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC, August 2000.

6. Zegeer, C.V. and M.J. Cynecki, Methods of Increasing Pedestrian Safety at Right-Turn-on-Red Intersections,

Report No. FHWA/RD-85/047, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, March 1985.

7. Van Houten, Ron and J.E. Louis Malenfant, Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety, Report No.

FHWA/RD-99/090, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1999.

Abrams, C. and S. Smith, Selection of Pedestrian Signal Phasing (Transportation Research Record No.

629), Transportation Research Board, 1977.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials,Task Force Right-Turn-on-Red,

"Safety and Delay Impacts of Right-Turn-on-Red," Washington, DC, 1979.

Bentzen, Billie and Lee S.Tabor, "Accessible Pedestrian Signals," U.S.Access Board PD-97-0072, 1998,

123
available at www.access-board.gov/research&training/pedsignals/pedestrian.htm#ACCESSIBLE.

Bowman, B., J. Fruin, and C. Zegeer, Handbook on Planning, Design and Maintenance of Pedestrian

Facilities, Federal Highway Administration, March 1989.

Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,

1988.

Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Control Devices Handbook, 1983.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, "Guidelines for Prohibition of Turns On Red" (ITE informational report, ITE Committee 4A-17), ITE Journal, February 1984.

Knoblauch R.L. and K.L. Crigler, Model Pedestrian Safety Program User’s Guide Supplement, Federal

Highway Administration, July 1987.

Lalani, N. and B. Baranowski, "Reducing Public Confusion About the Use of Pedestrian Signals." ITE

Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, January 1993.

McGee, H.W., "Accident Experience With Right-Turn-on-Red" (TRR 644),Transportation

Research Board, 1976.

Robertson, H.D. "Pedestrian Preferences for Symbolic Signal Displays," Transportation Engineering,

Volume 47, No. 6, Institute for Transportation Engineers,Washington, DC, June 1977.

Zegeer, C.V., Feasibility of Roadway Countermeasures for Pedestrian Accident Experience, (Report P-121),

Society of Automotive Engineers, 1983.

Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer, Pedestrians and Traffic Control Measures, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway

Practice No. 139, Transportation Research Board, November 1988.

Chapter 4G — Other Measures

1. Zegeer, C.V. and S.F. Zegeer, Pedestrians and Traffic Control Measures, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway

Practice No. 139, Transportation Research Board, November 1988.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy of Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, Washington, DC, 1990.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadside Design Guide,

Washington, DC, October 1988.

Bowman, B.L., J. Fruin, and C.V. Zegeer, Handbook on Planning, Design and Maintenance of Pedestrian

Facilities, Report No. IP-88-019, Federal Highway Administration, March 1989.

Federal Highway Administration, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways,

1988.

Humphries, J. and T. Darcy Sullivan, Guidelines for the Use of Truck-Mounted Attenuators in Work Zones,

Record No. 1304,Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 1991.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, "School Trip Safety Program Guidelines," ITE Journal, 1985.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Recommended Procedures for the Safety Performance

Evaluation of Hghway Appurtenances, Report No. 230,Transportation Research Board, National

Research Council, March 1981.

Shinder,A., H. Robertson, and M. Reiss, School Trip Safety and Urban Play Areas,Vol.V — Guidelines for

the Development of Safe Walking Trips and School Maps, Report No. FHWA-RD-75-108, Federal

Highway Administration, 1975.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and U.S. Department of Justice, Americans With

Disabilities Act Handbook, Washington, DC, October 1992.

124
Chapter 5 – Implementation and Resources

Getting Started

The Walkability Checklist can quickly identify some of the more obvious deficiencies in your community.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/ped/walk1.html

Another useful tool to get things started is to host a pedestrian roadshow or walkability audit in your

community.

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadshow/walk/overview.html

http://www.walkable.org/services/wcaudit.htm

Access issues:

A good introduction to accessibility and universal design.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/access-1.htm

A more comprehensive set of guidelines for achieving full accessibility from the US Access Board:

http://www.access-board.gov/news/prowaac.htm

Aesthetics:

California's Local Government Commission has some great resources on street design and livability.

http://www.lgc.org/transportation/street.html

http://www.lgc.org/center/index.html

Construction Strategies

Cities such as Seattle,WA, Portland, OR, and Cambridge, MA, have adopted plans and procedures to

ensure that pedestrian improvements become a routine activity in new development projects, reconstruction work, and retrofits.

City of Cambridge

http://www.ci.cambridge.ma.us/~CDD/envirotrans/walking/index.html

City of Portland

http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/Sidewalks_and_Pedestrians.html

City of Seattle

http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/td/stsdtoc.asp

Implementation

Federal funding sources are identified in FHWA's guidance on the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/BP-Broch.htm (simple brochure)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/BP-Guid.htm (more detailed guidance)

America Walks, a national coalition of pedestrian advocacy groups, has developed a variety of resources

that focus on results and implementation.

http://www.americawalks.org/resources/index.htm

Pedestrian User Guides and Handbooks

1. Federal Highway Administration, Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level, Washington,

DC, 1998.

125
2. Florida Department of Transportation, Florida’s Pedestrian Planning and Design Guidelines, Tallahassee,

FL, 1996.

3. Office of Transportation Engineering and Development, Pedestrian Program, Pedestrian Design

Guidelines Notebook, Portland, OR, 1997.

4. Washington State Department of Transportation, Puget Sound Regional Council, Association of

Washington Cities, and County Road Administration Board, Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating

Pedestrians Into Washington’s Transportation System, September 1997.

5. Maricopa Association of Governments, Pedestrian Area Policies and Design Guidelines, Phoenix,AZ,

October 1995.

6. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in

Suburban and Developing Rural Areas, Report 294B,Washington, DC, June 1987.

7. Zegeer, C.V., Portland Pedestrian Crossing Toolbox for Pedestrian Program, Bureau of Transportation

Engineering and Development, City of Portland, June 1995.

8. School Trip Safety Guidelines, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers,Washington, DC,

1985.

9. U.S. Department of Justice, The Americans With Disabilities Act Title II Technical Assistance Manual,

Covering State and Local Governments, November 1993.

10. Design Commission, Engineering Department and Strategic Planning Office, Making Streets that Work,

Seattle,Washington, April 1995.

11. Public Rights-of-Way Access Advisory Committee, U.S.Access Board, Building a True Community,

2001, available at www.access-board.gov/prowac/commrept/index.htm.

International Research Pedestrian User Guides and Handbooks

1. Van Houten, Ron and J.E. Louis Malenfant, Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety, Federal Highway

Administration,Washington, DC, January 1999.

2. Cairney, Peter, Pedestrian Safety in Australia, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, January

1999.

3. Davies, David G., Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United

Kingdom, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1999.

4. Federal Highway Administration, FHWA Study Tour for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England,

Germany, and the Netherlands, Report No. FHWA/PL-95/006,Washington, DC, 1994.

5. Gilleran, Brian F. and Greg Pates, Bicycling and Walking in the Nineties and Beyond:Applying Scandinavian

Experience to America’s Challenges, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, January 1999.

6. Hummel,T., Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review, Federal Highway Administration,Washington,

DC, January 1999.

7. Road Directorate, Denmark Ministry of Transport, Road Data Laboratory, Road Standard Division,

An Improved Traffic Environment — A Catalogue of Ideas, Report 106, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1993.

General References

1. Federal Highway Administration, Integrating Bicycle and Pedestrian Considerations Into State and Local

Transportation Planning, Design, and Operations, National Bicycling and Walking Study – Case Study No.

21,Washington, DC, 1994.

126
2. Jacobs,Allan B., Great Streets, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993.

3. Burrington, Stephen H., "Restoring the Rule of Law and Respect for Communities in

Transportation," Environmental Law Journal,Volume 5, No. 3, New York University, 1996.

4. City of Portland, Offices of Transportation,Transportation Engineering and Development, Pedestrian

Transportation Program, Portland Pedestrian Master Plan, Portland, OR, June 1998.

5. Conservation Law Foundation, City Routes, City Rights: Building Livable Neighborhoods and

Environmental Justice by Fixing Transportation, June 1998.

6. Denmark Ministry of Transport, Road Directorate, An Improved Traffic Environment:A Catalogue of Ideas,

Traffic Safety and Environment, 1993.

7. Federal Highway Administration, Bicycling & Walking in the Nineties and Beyond:Applying the

Scandinavian Experience to America’s Challenge, November 1994.

8. Federal Highway Administration, Flexibility in Highway Design, Washington, DC, 1997.

9. Federal Highway Administration, Safety-Effectiveness of Highway Design Features,Volume VI: Pedestrians

and Bicyclists, 1991.

10. Federal Highway Administration, Study Tour Report for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in England, Germany

and the Netherlands, October 1994.

11. Institute of Transportation Engineers,The Traffic Safety Toolbox:A Primer on Traffic Safety,

Washington, DC, 1999.

12. National Highway Institute, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation,

Publication No. FHWA-HI-96-028, May 1996.

13. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts, updated yearly.

14. Rodale Press, Inc., Pathways for People, June 1992.

15. Seiderman, Cara, "Traveling at the Speed of Life," in Conservation Matters, 4 (Autumn 1997), pp. 20-23.

16. U.S. Department of Transportation and Rails to Trails Conservancy, Improving Conditions for Bicycling

and Walking:A Best Practices Report, January 1998.

17. Whyte,William H., City: Rediscovering the Center, Anchor Books, Doubleday, 1998.

18. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Law Enforcement

Pedestrian Safety, DOT-HS-808-008, NTS-23.

19. Federal Highway Administration, The National Bicycling and Walking Study, Washington, DC, 1994.

20. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation Planning Handbook, Prentice Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, NJ, 1999 (Draft).

21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Engineering Handbook, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ,

1999 (Draft).

22. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, Uniform Vehicle Code, 1992.

23. National Research Council,Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2000,

Washington, DC, 1999 (Draft).

24. Federal Highway Administration, A Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the U.S. and Abroad,

Washington, DC, February 1999.

25. Pedestrian Facilities for Transit Access Project, Evaluation of Needs and Constraints, Cambridge Systematics,

Inc., June 1996.

26. Reploge, M. and H. Parcells, Linking Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities With Transit, October 1992.

127
27. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities:A Recommended Practice of

the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC, March 1998.

28. Knoblauch, R.L., B.H.Tustin, S.A. Smith, and M.T. Petrucha, Investigation of Exposure-Based Pedestrian

Accident Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets and Major Arterials, Report No. FHWA/RD-87-038,

Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC, 1987.

29. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook, Washington, DC,

1990.

30. Smith, S. et al., Planning and Implementing Pedestrian Facilities in Suburban and Developing Rural Areas,

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 294A,Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC, June 1987.

31. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatal Accident Reporting System, Washington, DC, 1992.

32. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Standard Specifications for Highway

Bridges, Washington, DC, 1989.

33. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Guide Specifications for Bridge

Railings, Washington, DC, 1989.

34. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of

Highways and Streets, Washington, DC, 1984.

35. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Roadway Design Guide,

Washington, DC, 1989.

128
Appendix A

Pedestrian Facility Case

Studies

Photo by Dan Burden

129
“Woonerfs” or Living Streets

A Retail Woonerf or "Living Street"

Wall Street — Asheville, North Carolina

Wall Street was originally an alley that ran behind downtown businesses in Asheville. The alley was opened to traffic

in the 1940s, but vehicle speeds were low and volume was

minor because of the narrow street design and a curve.

Over time, several businesses opened with their storefronts

in the alley, and Wall Street became an underground arts district. In the 1970s, the street was redeveloped to change the

street character into a tourist destination and improve pedestrian amenities. After a decade of decline during redevelopment,Wall Street is now a great place to be. It is home to

several businesses, restaurants, a climbing wall, and a church.

Although there are no raised sidewalks, the slow vehicle

speeds make this street very pedestrian-friendly. The entire

street was repaved using cobblestone-like pavers. Everything

is at-grade and both sides of the street are separated from

possible vehicle use by bollards and lampposts. Parking was

added to one side of the street at the request of the merchants, only leaving room for one-way travel at very slow

speeds.Wall Street attracts a lot of pedestrian traffic with

most people walking in the street.

Residential Woonerfs or "Living Streets"

The Cottages and Bridgewalk — Boulder, Colorado

In the early and mid-1980s, two moderate-income housing

projects were developed in Boulder based on the Dutch

concept of the "woonerf," or living street. The Cottages

consists of 40 owner-occupied condominiums, while

Bridgewalk has 123 rental units. Each contains a single-loop

street that curves through the complex, around bollards and

landscaping, to create a space to be shared by pedestrians,

bicyclists, and motor vehicles.

Asheville’s redevelopment caters to pedestrians.

The Cottage’s shared pedestrian and vehicle space.

130

Photos by Dan Burden
Comprehensive Traffic-Calming

Projects in Residential

Neighborhoods

Raised Intersections, Curb Extensions,

Chicanes, and More in a Residential

Neighborhood

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Berkshire Street is in a mixed-use residential/commercial

neighborhood, and is home to a school, a library, and a playing field. Heavy volumes of children and other pedestrians

cross Berkshire Street daily. High speeds were a major problem as many drivers sped on Berkshire and ran stop signs.

Several pedestrian collisions had occurred on Berkshire,

mostly involving children. A variety of traffic-calming treatments were implemented in 1997, including a raised crosswalk, raised intersections, curb extensions, and a set of midblock chicanes. Chokers and raised intersections were also

installed along nearby streets to slow vehicles and discourage

cut-through traffic. The traffic-calming measures were very

effective; before the project, only 41 percent of the vehicles

were traveling at or below the posted speed limit of 40 km/h

(25 mi/h), while afterward, the compliance rate increased to

95 percent. The street improvements have also changed the

entire atmosphere of the street, making it more livable and

pedestrian-friendly.

Textured Crosswalk, Median Barrier, and

Other Improvements in a Mixed-Use

Neighborhood

Portland, Oregon

SW Corbett cuts through a mixed single-family apartment

and commercial neighborhood, but it also connects directly

to downtown Portland and serves as a de facto collector and

commuter route. The neighborhood traffic committee

decided that it would be difficult to divert traffic and instead

focused on improving the atmosphere for neighborhood

pedestrians and bicyclists. Curb extensions, pedestrian refuge

islands, a textured crosswalk, a median barrier, three speed

humps, and raised pavement markers were installed, and the

speed limit was dropped to 40 km/h (25 mi/h). The

This set of curb extensions narrows the street

width, which shortens the distance pedestrians

have to cross; eliminates illegal parking at the

intersection; tightens turning radii; and slows traffic, all without eliminating any lanes.

A comprehensive traffic-calming plan transformed this Portland neighborhood into a more

livable place.

131

Portland Traffic Calming Plan City of Cambridge, MA
improvements reduced speeds along the route and created a

friendlier atmosphere for all modes of transportation.

Chicanes, Speed Humps, and Curb

Extensions in a Neighborhood

Milvia "Slow" Street — Berkeley, California

In the mid-1980s, residents of Milvia Street in Berkeley

were distressed by the all-too-frequent crashes on their street

and they worried about the traffic impact of plans to build a

new office building. Milvia is a residential street, but has several childcare centers, a preschool, two elementary schools, a

junior high school, and a city park nearby. Residents worked

with the City and office developer to locate funds for and to

design a "slow street," with curb extensions and midblock

planters, creating a curvature in the street and one or two

speed humps per block over the six-block section. As a

result, the street operates at slower speeds and attracts a significant amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Citizen Input Creates Solutions

Grand Junction, Colorado

Several years ago, First Street, a rural two-lane road with no

curb, gutter, or sidewalks, was beginning to develop speed

and congestion problems. After reviewing possible design

solutions with the project engineer, the City Council decided that expanding the street to three lanes with medians was

the best solution. However, the plans to redesign First Street

by expanding the right-of-way were strongly opposed by

many of the residents. After several public meetings, the residents convinced the City to make a number of changes to

the design plan. In order to reduce the project’s impact on

people’s lives and property, the final design involved the construction of a center turn lane with occasional medians to

slow traffic and provide for safe pedestrian crossings. A 1.5-

m- (5-ft-) wide sidewalk, cutting back 0.9 m (3 ft) at driveways to ensure a level-cross grade, was installed on both

sides of the street, in addition to curbs and 1.5-m-wide gutters for use as bike lanes. In addition, all of the local utilities

and irrigation systems were diverted underground and historic lighting fixtures were added.

A chicane slows the speed of cars.

Wider sidewalks, bike lanes, and raised crosswalks

with a crossing island create a safer environment. 

Planted islands create safety and scenery.

132

Photos by Dan Burden
Midtown Neighborhood Preservation

Transportation Plan

Sacramento, California

Residents of the Midtown and East Sacramento neighborhoods were tired of drivers using their neighborhoods as a

shortcut downtown. In response, the City Council brought

in a consulting firm to work with the community to create

a plan for traffic movement within the area. The plan was

developed by the community members with guidance from

the consultants and was then submitted to the City for

approval. The Department of Public Works made a few

minor adjustments, but the plan was essentially implemented

as designed by the community. The improvements included

conversion of two one-way streets with parking to two-lane,

two-way streets with parking on each side; five new traffic

signals; several additional stop signs; crosswalks; pedestrian

crossing islands at intersections; traffic mini-circles; and halfclosures. Almost all of the measures were completed by the

summer of 1998 at a cost of just over $1,200,000. The

result has been a much more livable and safe neighborhood

for these Sacramento residents.

Neighborhoods Reconnect Along 55th

Street

Boulder, Colorado

Fifty-Fifth Street was a busy collector street, providing a

direct north/south link between two arterials, carrying a

volume of approximately 9,500 vehicles each day. However,

the residential neighborhoods on either side of the street

were completely isolated due to the lack of pedestrian linkages across 55th Street. In order to reconnect the neighborhoods on both sides of 55th Street, the City installed several

raised crosswalks, raised intersections, new sidewalks on

either side, and pedestrian crossing islands in order to mitigate the speeding cars. Now, there is much safer pedestrian

access on both sides of the street and the once isolated

neighborhoods have been reconnected for pedestrian travelers.

Pedestrian crossing islands were a key strategy for

reclaiming neighborhood streets.

A pedestrian underpass that filled a gap in

Boulder’s existing trail system.

A raised intersection reduced traffic speeds and

facilitated pedestrian crossings.

133

Photo by Herman Huang City of Boulder, CO City of Boulder, CO
Slower Auto Speeds Bring a Neighborhood

Back to Life

Naples, Florida

Naples is an affluent coastal residential community that

stretches 11.3 km (7 mi) along Florida beaches, but is only

1.6 km (1 mi) wide. Many beach-bound auto travelers cut

through and sped through residential neighborhoods. In

response, Naples decided to undertake numerous trafficcalming projects in order to slow down speeders and

improve the appearance of the community. Seventh Avenue

is a residential street that historically has had problems with

high through-traffic volumes and speeders. In response, the

City implemented a number of different treatments, including three medians to narrow the 1.6-km (1-m) streets and

reduce their perceived width. A median was added at the

streets’ entrances, along with brick pavers to narrow the

streets and indicate to drivers that they were entering a residential neighborhood. In addition, several roundabouts were

added, an intersection was raised into a speed table and distinguished through brick paving, and extensive landscaping

was added to make the street appear narrower and more

attractive. As a result, speeds have dropped significantly and

the street itself is a much more aesthetically pleasing place

for residents and visitors.

Traffic-Calming Strategies

Promote Downtown Revitalization

Pedestrian Improvements That Turned

Downtown Around

Climata and Narcissus Streets — West Palm Beach,

Florida

Downtown West Palm Beach was a notorious area for

crime. The wide streets of West Palm Beach were viewed as

escape routes by drivers, rushing to get out of downtown,

stopping as little as possible. As part of an overall downtown

redevelopment strategy, the City of West Palm Beach

redesigned its entire downtown with the pedestrian in mind.

The Climata/Narcissus Street area became one of the first

traffic-calming/redevelopment projects for the City. The

streets were narrowed, shifted laterally, and visually calmed

through trees, landscaping, and storefront improvements. At

the intersections, curb extensions slowed turning traffic and

Landscaping and curb extensions create an atmosphere that is friendly to pedestrians as well as cars.

Bulb-outs and other street-narrowing measures

have enhanced the pedestrian environment in

Naples, Florida.

134

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Dan Burden
offered improved pedestrian crossing. A public fountain and

plaza were built at one intersection, attracting children and

families. The pedestrians and shoppers returned, which

helped to rejuvenate local business and act as an inspiration

for other downtown improvement projects.

Downtown Revitalization Brings Back a 

Seaside Community

Fort Pierce, Florida

Fort Pierce is a seaside community located along the intercoastal waterway on the Atlantic Coast of Florida.While

Fort Pierce was one of Florida’s earliest transportation and

commercial hubs, the rapid suburbanization and malling of

St. Lucie County in the 1970s helped foster its decline. In

the mid-1990s, private and public leaders decided it was

time to rebuild their community. Since one of the major

stumbling blocks to downtown revitalization was an inhospitable pedestrian environment, a community charette

(design workshop) was organized in January 1995 to produce a vision and plan for reconstructing the downtown.

The charrette, sponsored jointly by the city of Fort Pierce,

the Main Street Fort Pierce Program, and the regional planning agency, resulted in the construction of several major

projects within 3 years, including the development of a

downtown roundabout and steetscape on Second Street.

The streetscape project included the repaving of Second

Street, downtown’s main road; expanding and retiling all the

sidewalks with light colored brick; planting new palm trees;

and installing decorative streetlights downtown. The next

phase of the project reconfigured the street network of the

waterfront area to improve traffic flow, improve the connection between the waterfront and downtown, and open the

waterfront for redevelopment. All of the redevelopment

improvements have generated significant new activity and

interest in downtown.

A Main Street Comes Back to Life

Hendersonville, North Carolina

Due to the construction of a regional shopping mall, the

mountain town of Hendersonville, North Carolina, watched

its old downtown lose its place as the commercial and social

center of the community. At night, the wide and straight

roadway became a car race track for local teenagers.

Inspired by a trip to Grand Junction, Colorado, local town

Improved design and landscaping improve the livability of downtown Fort Pierce.

Curb extensions shorten pedestrian crossing distances and slow down cars.

135

Photo by Henry Renske
leaders decided to reinvent Main Street as a specialty shopping center oriented toward out of town visitors. However,

the new Main Street first needed to develop an environment

that could entice travelers out of their cars. In order to

enhance the street for pedestrians, the Main Street was narrowed from four lanes to two. Midblock curb extensions

were added, with marked crosswalks at the peak of each

extension. The curb extensions shorten pedestrian crossing

distances at intersections, improve pedestrian visibility, force

tighter/slower right turns onto Main Street, and reinforce

the notion that the driver has entered a traffic-calmed area.

The area has also been landscaped with signs, flowers, and

trees. As a result, Main Street in Hendersonville is once

again bustling with pedestrians and shoppers.

Old Town Revival

Eureka, California

In 1976, the Planning and Engineering Departments of

Eureka, California, began to work together on the process of

revitalizing the city’s "Old Town" district. Over the next 2

years, a variety of streetscaping improvements were made to

beautify the area and make it more friendly to pedestrians,

shoppers, and tourists. This area included a wide variety of

shops, historic Victorian houses, and the Carson Mansion.

The City installed a variety of treatments along Second

Street, including curb extensions; S curves; raised islands; and

brick sidewalks, crosswalks, and intersections. In addition,

parking was removed from each side of the street and sidewalks were expanded. The Second Street portion of Old

Town is now a significant attraction for tourists, as well as

for local residents, to visit, walk, and shop. The area has a

variety of establishments with sidewalk seating and high

pedestrian volumes.

Pedestrian Promenade Restores Civic Life

Santa Monica, California

The Third Street Promenade was a commercial district made

into a pedestrian mall in the 1960s. Over the years, it was

neglected and fell into disrepair. In 1989, the City decided

to revitalize the area by creating a set of design guidelines

that promoted the preservation of historic buildings along

Third Street, mandated that new development be on a

pedestrian scale, and encouraged the addition of pedestrian

amenities by property owners. Even though a road was constructed with removable bollards at the end of each block as

Newly curved roads force motorists to drive slowly.

Part of Eureka’s Second Street features a raised

intersection, brick crosswalks, and Carter Mansion

in the background.

View of the Third Street Promenade.

136

Photo by Henry Renske Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Dan Burden
part of the redevelopment project to appease the concerns

of business owners, the bollards have never been removed

because of the Promenade’s overwhelming success as a

pedestrian-only space.

School-Related Safety

Improvements for Students

Modern Roundabout Near Middle School

Keck Circle — Montpelier,Vermont

At the beginning and ending of the school day, Main Street

in Montpelier suffered from congestion as parents dropped

off middle school students and drivers sped through a Tintersection crossed by students and senior center residents.

To address this problem, the City chose to install a modern

roundabout — Keck Circle. The roundabout’s design

requires that drivers slow to roughly 24 km/h (15 mi/h)

when entering the circle, and drivers are warned to watch

for pedestrians. In addition, the smooth flow through the

roundabout reduced traffic congestion in front of the school.

Pedestrian Refuge Island at Busy Crosswalk

Between Park and Boys and Girls Club

Bellevue,Washington

The crosswalk on 100th Avenue in Bellevue links the Boys

and Girls Club with Bellevue Downtown Park. In February

1997, a 6-year-old boy was struck while crossing this fourlane street at a crosswalk. Cars in three of the four lanes had

stopped, but one had not. Following the crash, the Bellevue

Transportation Department replaced one of the two southbound lanes with a center turn lane. At the crosswalk, this

turn lane now contains a pedestrian crossing island, narrowing

the street and providing a safe haven for crossing pedestrians.

Gated Pedestrian Refuge Island Next to

High School

12th Avenue — Tucson, Arizona

Twelfth Avenue is a very busy arterial street, adjacent to a

high school. To enter/exit the school, students crossed

against speeding traffic, resulting in many near crashes.

Vehicles must slow down to enter the tight curve of

the roundabout, creating a safer interaction with

pedestrians.

The crossing island allows children to cross the

street in two short trips, instead of waiting for a

clearing long enough to cross the entire street.

137

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Dan Burden
Students were also congregating in front of a restaurant

directly across from the school entrance, upsetting the

restaurant owner. An 26-m- (88-ft-) long median was

installed in the center turn lane. The crosswalk was separated into two legs, the first connecting the school entrance

with the island, the second connecting the far end of the

island to a transit stop farther down the street than the

restaurant. The island was gated so that entry and exit are

possible only at the two far ends, and the crosswalks were

marked with ladder striping and signed with overhead yellow flashers and several crossing signs. The median reduces

potential pedestrian/vehicle conflicts by offering mid-street

pedestrian refuge. The gated design is effective in channeling pedestrian crossings at the crosswalks and directing students away from the restaurant.

Sidewalks, Modern Roundabout, and Bike

Path Near Several Schools

Grandview Drive — University Place,Washington

The City of University Place decided to begin their pedestrian improvement and traffic-calming program on

Grandview Drive, a two-lane residential route that had

schools at both ends of the project area, but no sidewalks or

other pedestrian amenities. Sidewalks, street trees, curb and

gutter, bike lanes, and landscaped medians were added, narrowing the roadway and providing a more attractive, pedestrian-oriented atmosphere. In addition, a roundabout was

installed at the busiest intersection, adjacent to two schools.

The project has reduced speeds by 8 km/h (5 mi/h) and

changed the community’s attitudes about traffic calming and

pedestrian improvements.

Recycled Bridge Provides Pedestrian

Access for Students

Aire Libre Elementary School — Phoenix, Arizona

In the early 1990s, two schools in Phoenix were both in the

difficult position of needing a pedestrian bridge. An

expressway near Mercury Mine Elementary School was

being widened and its bridge would no longer be wide

enough. At roughly the same time students at Aire Libre

Elementary were running across the Greenway Parkway,

which had been built along their route to school. The City

opted to move the 65-megagram (72-ton) Mercury Mine

bridge 9.7 km (6 mi) to a new site over the Greenway

The gates on this pedestrian island require pedestrians to turn right on the island before crossing

the second half of the street, which directs their

attention to the oncoming traffic.

The addition of bicycle lanes and sidewalks create

space for pedestrians, while medians and landscaping narrow the street width and slow traffic.

A recycled bridge provides a safe pedestrian route

for students in Phoenix.

138

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Michael Cynecki
Parkway. The new ramps and footings were designed with

the help of a local artist to look as if the bridge had always

belonged there. This "new" bridge is not only aesthetically

pleasing, but reusing this resource was approximately

$500,000 cheaper than building a new bridge for the

school.

Other Treatments

Covered Bike Parking That’s More Than It

Seems

Monroe Street — Corvallis, Oregon

The City of Corvallis determined that it needed to address

the growing number of pedestrian injuries in its downtown

area. There was also a demand for more bicycle parking on

the main commercial corridor bordering Oregon State

University. To resolve these problems, the City installed

three curb extensions, each containing a covered bike parking structure. The curb extensions improved pedestrian safety by reducing the crossing width of the intersection and

providing improved sightlines for pedestrians. Bicycle parking is being used extensively and the covered bicycle parking also serves as a protected bus stop for transit patrons.

With strong support for the project from local businesses,

there are already plans for several more curb extensions to

be installed.

Speed Humps Create Safety on a

Residential Street

Tucson, Arizona

Langley Avenue/Kingston Drive is a residential street that

was used as a cut-through for commuters. Not only was the

street a favorite shortcut for late-night drivers trying to

avoid intersections and the police, but there were also several

crashes involving speeding vehicles crashing into houses.

Since the neighborhood streets had no sidewalks, neighborhood residents avoided walking or bicycling on their own

streets due to the large number of speeding motorists.

Instead of stop signs, the city engineering department recommended speed humps, and their construction was

financed by the residents themselves. Six speed humps were

installed, which led to a significant reduction in speeding

vehicles, as well as traffic volume. As a result, people feel

Covered bike parking benefits pedestrians as well

by creating a narrower crosswalk through curb

extensions.

Speed humps help prevent speeding in this residential neighborhood.

139

Photo by Dan Burden Photo by Richard Nassi
safe walking, pushing strollers, and letting children ride bikes

in the street, even though the neighborhood still has no sidewalks.

Intersections Designed With Safety in Mind

Along Springwater Corridor

Portland, Oregon

The Springwater Corridor is a 21-km- (13-mi-) long, 3-mto 3.7-m- (10-ft- to 12-ft-) wide former railroad right-ofway converted by the City of Portland into a multi-use trail.

Since the trail goes through three cities (Portland, Milwaukie,

and Gresham) and two counties (Multnomah and

Clackamas), it is heavily used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and

equestrians for both transportation and recreation. Along the

length of the trail, there are several road crossings, from small

residential streets to four-lane arterials, so special care was

taken to make the crossings as safe as possible for both

motorists and non-motorized trail users. While some of the

shortest crossings have no markings, others have ladder-style

crosswalks, and the largest intersections have signals with

pedestrian crossing islands. The signals at these intersections

face both motorists and trail users, who can activate the signal by a variety of different methods. Pedestrians can use a

traditional pushbutton, bicyclists activate a loop underneath

the path, and equestrians can activate a higher pushbutton.

The result is a much safer environment for all trail users.

Marked crosswalks and signals make intersections

safer for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

140

Photo by Dan Burden
Appendix B

Recommended Guidelines/

Priorities for Sidewalks and

Walkways

Photo by Dan Burden

141
I. Introduction

According to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO) A

Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (also known as “the Green Book”): "Providing safe places

for people to walk is an essential responsibility of all government entities involved in constructing or regulating the construction of public rights-of-way."

It is a basic principle that there be well-designed, safe places for people to walk along all public rights-ofway. How this will be accomplished will depend upon the type of road, whether it is new construction or

a retrofitted area, and funding availability.

On February 24, 1999, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Administrator Kenneth R.Wykle, in a

memorandum to FHWA field offices, stated, "We expect every transportation agency to make accommodations for bicycling and walking a routine part of their planning, design, construction, operations, and

maintenance activities." Again, in February 28, 2000,Administrator Wykle sent a memorandum to the field

offices in transmitting the new Design Guidance Language called for in the Transportation Equity Act for

the 21st Century (TEA-21). The guidance, entitled "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:A

Recommended Approach – A U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Integrating Bicycling and Walking Into

Transportation Infrastructure," states that bicycling and walking facilities will be incorporated into all

transportation projects unless "exceptional circumstances" exist. The exceptional circumstances are spelled

out, and he asked the division offices to work with State departments of transportation (DOTs) in the

implementation of the guidance.

Government agencies at the State, regional, and local level are developing regulations for funding,

installing, and retrofitting sidewalks. Because there is a great need to improve sidewalk facilities, it is important for these transportation agencies to direct funding to sidewalk improvement and installation projects

that will be most beneficial to the safety and mobility of all citizens.

This document is intended to provide agencies at the State, regional, and local levels with tools they can

use to develop guidelines for creating places for people to walk.

This document is limited to creating guidelines for sidewalks, which addresses only one major pedestrian

need; other needs that merit further consideration include the ability to cross a street and intersection design.

II. Basic Principles

Many communities may wish to revisit their roadway planning and rehabilitation criteria. Policies, standard

plans, subdivision regulations, and right-of-way requirements should be considered to make sure that sidewalks are included in new construction and rehabilitation projects.

A. Goals and Objectives

Typically, communities should focus on: (1) improving conditions for people who are currently walking

(including improved accessibility to sidewalk facilities for pedestrians with disabilities), (2) increasing levels

of walking, and (3) reducing the number of crashes involving pedestrians. Setting targets will help in the

development of criteria for installing and retrofitting sidewalks.

B. Pedestrian Facilities

There are several ways in which pedestrians can be accommodated in the public right-of-way:

142
1. Sidewalks. Sidewalks, provided on both sides of a street, are generally the preferred pedestrian facility.

They provide the greatest degree of comfort for pedestrians and the presence of sidewalks has been 

associated with increased safety for pedestrians.The Uniform Vehicle Code defines a sidewalk as that 

portion of a street between the curb lines, or the lateral lines of a roadway, and the adjacent property 

lines, intended for use by pedestrians. In most cases, sidewalks are paved, usually in concrete. To 

comply with Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines, newly constructed sidewalks 

must be accessible to people with disabilities.

2. Off-Road Paths. An off-road path — paved or unpaved — can be an appropriate facility in rural or 

low-density suburban areas. Paths are generally set back from the roads and separated by a green area 

or trees. Paths can be flexible in that they can deviate from the exact route of a road in order to provide more direct access for key destinations. Paths that generally follow the roadway alignment are 

sometimes known as "side paths." 

3. Shoulders. Wide shoulders on both sides of a road are the minimum requirement for providing at 

least a possible place for people to walk. They are not as safe as paths or sidewalks, but they are better 

than nothing. Shoulders are also beneficial for motorists and bicyclists, and future sidewalks or paths 

should be created in addition to, not to replace the shoulders.

4. Shared Streets. In very limited unusual circumstances, it may be possible to allow shared use of a 

street for people walking and driving. These are usually specially designed spaces such as pedestrian 

streets or "woonerfs," and guidelines for developing these kinds of places can be found elsewhere in 

the FHWA’s Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility.

C. New Construction and Retrofitting

Places for people to walk should be provided in all new construction. Retrofitting will require priorities to

be set, and these guidelines are intended to help identify where the need is greatest for adding sidewalks

and other facilities.

III. New Construction

A. New Sidewalk Installation

All new construction must include places for people to walk, on both sides of a street or roadway. New

construction in urban and suburban areas should provide sidewalks. Recommended guidelines for new

sidewalk and walkway installation are given in Table 1.

B. Phased Development of Sidewalks

In developing and rural areas, it may be acceptable — although less desirable — to start with shoulders

and unpaved paths and then phase in sidewalks as development accelerates. Criteria for installing sidewalks

along with new development should be implemented with the following in mind:

1. Space for Future Sidewalks: Space for future sidewalks must always be secured and/or reserved 

when a new right-of-way is being created or an existing one is being developed. If roadways are to be

widened, additional right-of-way must be acquired; existing sidewalks should not be narrowed to 

accommodate a wider roadway.

2. "Triggers" for Future Sidewalks: In rural settings, if sidewalks are not installed at the time of 

development, guidelines are needed to determine when sidewalks will be required and how they will 

be funded. For example, sidewalks might be required on residential streets once an area has a density 

143
of more than four dwelling units per acre and on arterial streets once they are within a school walking zone or have transit service.

3. Funding for Future Sidewalks: If sidewalks are not installed at the time of development, there 

need to be clear regulations as to who (developer, property owners, or governmental agency) will 

pay for the sidewalks. Whoever is paying for the road must pay for the sidewalk. If there is money for 

a road, there is money for a sidewalk. Developer contributions to sidewalks must be set aside in an 

account at the time of development.

C. Retaining Rural Character

There is a desire in some residential developments to retain a rural atmosphere. Very often this occurs in

places that are not truly rural, but rather suburban or exurban (they may have been rural before being

developed). Frequently, it is in such places that pedestrian crashes occur that are directly attributable to

pedestrians not having places to walk. To address both the goal of having safe places to walk and that of

the community to retain a certain atmosphere, path systems can be developed that do not look like traditional sidewalks, but do meet walking needs. Even in rural areas, people do want to walk and such facilities

should be provided.

Developers in outlying areas may argue that the land use will never fully develop into a pedestrian area.

Given that people walk despite not having facilities — for exercise, going to friends’ houses, accessing

transit, etc. — it is neither rational nor acceptable to build places that do not have places for people to

walk. Residential developments that were added in suburban areas, until recently, typically had sidewalks

and functioned very well.

Sidewalks may not be needed on short residential cul-de-sacs (61 m [200 ft] or less), if there is a system of

trails behind the houses and driveway aprons are properly constructed for pedestrians with disabilities.

However, it is not a good practice to have an entire neighborhood without sidewalks.

D. Sidewalk Continuity

Sidewalks should be continuous; interruptions may require pedestrians to cross a busy arterial street midblock or at an unsignalized location to continue walking. Sidewalks should also be fully accessible to side

streets and adjacent sidewalks and buildings.

IV. Retrofitting Sidewalks

Many of the streets built in recent decades do not have sidewalks, and these streets need to be retrofitted.

In other cases, existing sidewalks need to be replaced. Establishing priorities for installing sidewalks

involves three steps: (1) develop a prioritized list of criteria, (2) develop a methodology for using the criteria to evaluate potential sites, and (3) create a prioritized list of sites for sidewalk improvements.

A. Criteria

The following are suggested criteria for establishing priorities. Select three or more of them when developing your own set of criteria. The key is to select criteria that produce the outcomes desired for your

community:

1. Speed: There is a direct relationship between speed and the number and severity of crashes; highspeed facilities may rank higher if speed is a criterion.

2. Street Classification: Arterial streets should take precedence because they generally have higher 

pedestrian use (due to more commercial uses), have a greater need to separate pedestrians from motor 

144
vehicles (due to higher traffic volumes and speeds), and are the main links in a community.

3. Crash Data: Pedestrian crashes seldom occur with high frequency at one location, but there are 

clearly locations where crashes occur due to a lack of sidewalks. Usually, there is a pattern of pedestrian crashes up and down a corridor, indicating a need to provide sidewalks throughout, not just at 

crash locations.

4. School Walking Zones: School walking zones typically extend from residential areas to an 

elementary school. Children are especially vulnerable, making streets (especially arterials) in these 

zones prime candidates for sidewalk retrofitting.

5. Transit Routes: Transit riders need sidewalks to access transit stops. Arterials used by transit are 

prime candidates for sidewalk retrofitting.

6. Neighborhoods With Low Vehicle Ownership: Twenty percent of the U.S. population has a disability and 30 percent of our population does not drive. Walking is the primary mode of transportation for many of the people in this country. People with disabilities live throughout the community. If

they are not seen in the community, it may be due to the fact that adequate facilities are not provided.

In addition, car ownership is lower and crash rates are often higher in low- and moderate-income 

neighborhoods with lots of children. Therefore, some locations with high pedestrian use 

(neighborhoods with more children and elderly persons and where vehicle ownership is low) should 

be given special consideration for sidewalks.

7. Urban Centers/Neighborhood Commercial Areas: Areas of high commercial activity generate 

high pedestrian use, even if they are primarily motorists who have parked their car. Sidewalks are 

needed to improve safety and enhance the economic viability of these areas.

8. Other Pedestrian Generators: Hospitals, community centers, libraries, sports arenas, and other 

public places are natural pedestrian generators where sidewalks should be given priority.

9. Missing Links: Installing sidewalks to connect pedestrian areas to each other creates continuous 

walking systems.

10. Neighborhood Priorities: Local residents may have a sense of where the most desirable walking 

routes exist. Neighborhood groups or homeowners associations can provide a prioritized list of 

locations where they see a need for sidewalks. Agencies should be cautious about using this criterion,

as it is not desirable to let neighborhood pressure override addressing a key safety concern. However,

it may be useful to monitor requests from pedestrians with disabilities.

B. Methodology

The two recommended methodologies for selecting locations for improvements are: (1) the overlapping

priorities method, and (2) the points method. Establishing priorities should consume only a small percentage of a program budget — the level of effort put into prioritization should be proportionate to the size

of the capital budget.

There is no single right way to select which criteria to use when developing priorities. The criteria and

methodology should balance safety measures, such as vehicle speeds and pedestrian crash data; pedestrian

usage measures, such as proximity to schools or commercial areas; continuity between origins and destinations; and accessibility for pedestrians with disabilities.

1. Overlapping Priorities Method: The easiest and cheapest way to identify overlapping priorities is 

through graphical representation; the intent is to identify locations that meet multiple criteria. This 

methodology is especially useful in cases where there is not a lot of staff time and funding for detailed 

analysis. It can be accomplished using a GIS system or it can be done by hand.

The best way to describe this methodology is by example. Assume that priorities are going to be 

developed based on transit routes, proximity to schools, people with disabilities, and neighborhood 

commercial areas. Start with a map of your jurisdiction. Using a color pen, identify those arterials 

145
that have high transit use; draw a half-mile circle around every elementary school and around locations

that attract people with disabilities; and color in the neighborhood commercial areas. This visual 

approach will make areas of overlapping priorities become immediately clear. The streets without

sidewalks within the overlapping areas are the highest priority for retrofitting sidewalks.

2. Points Method: A weighted points system can be used where staff time and funding are available for 

more detailed analysis, or if there is a large amount of capital available for sidewalk construction. If 

there are a lot of competing projects, a more sophisticated point system can be used to explain to the 

public why certain projects were funded and others were not.

A point system can be developed in many ways; the system should be simple and produce desired 

outcomes. Any and all of the criteria listed above can be assigned a range of numbers and then be 

used to analyze the need for improvement at given locations. For example, a corridor could be 

assigned points based on the number of "walking along roadway" crashes over a 5-year period, the 

number of buses that travel the corridor during peak times, and the proximity to elementary schools.

This method is time-consuming because it will be necessary to analyze multiple locations with 

sidewalk needs to create a list of priority projects.

3. Prioritized List: Both the overlapping priorities and the points methods will produce an initial list 

of prioritized projects. The next step is to refine the list so that it works, using common sense. One 

important consideration is that when roadways are resurfaced, rehabilitated, or replaced, curb ramps 

must be added if there are pedestrian walkways. In addition, the U.S. Department of Justice considers 

bus stops to be pedestrian walkways requiring access for people with disabilities, so areas near transit 

should be given priority accordingly. Improving pedestrian crossings, particularly on arterial streets,

may also be an important part of some projects. Other important questions include: Are priority 

locations ones that might be expected? Are there many surprises? Are priority locations in line with 

community priorities and expectations? Are some priorities at locations with very low pedestrian use? 

If the answer to these questions is "yes," then the criteria or the methodology should be evaluated and

possibly revised to create outcomes that better reflect expectations and desires.The methodologies 

should be used to prioritize known needs, not to create a new set of priorities that don’t make sense.

The final step is to create packages of fundable projects.The prioritization process should result in 

reasonable packages that decision-makers can embrace and support. For example, it may be possible to

install sidewalks on both sides of every arterial within a half-mile of every elementary school for $5 

million over a period of 5 years. Or, it may be possible to replace sidewalks in neighborhood 

commercial areas for $2 million over a period of 3 years. The objective is to take what may appear to 

be an unsolvable problem (endless need for more funds) and to package it in such a way that it begins 

to address some of the most critical pedestrian needs in a community.

V. Sidewalk Design Guidelines

Sidewalk Placement in Large and Small Cities 

Continuous sidewalks should be placed along both sides of all fully improved arterial, collector, and local

streets in urban and suburban areas. Sidewalks should connect to side streets and adjacent buildings.

Accessible crossings should be provided across median islands, frontage road medians, and other raised

islands.

146
Seattle Example

Seattle recently completed an inventory of all sidewalks in the city using a three-step process:

1. An intern was hired to review aerial photographs to determine whether a sidewalk existed. This

information was then recorded as a new layer on the existing GIS street database.

2. The intern field-checked all locations where there was some uncertainty regarding the presence

of a sidewalk (about 10 percent of the aerial photographs were not clear).

3. Each of 13 neighborhood groups that cover the city were given a draft copy of the inventory and

were asked to check for errors.

The total effort took the equivalent of one full-time person working for 6 months in a city of

530,000 population, 218.3 km2 (84.3 mi2) of land use and 2,659 roadway kilometers (1,652 roadway

miles) [1,934 residential street kilometers (1,202 residential street miles) and 724 arterial kilometers

(450 arterial miles)]. Once the inventory was completed, the information was combined on a map

with three other types of information:

1. School Walking Zones: A colored circle identified a half-mile area around each school.

2. Pedestrian Generators: A second color was used to identify a half-mile area around key pedestrian generators, such as hospitals, libraries, and community centers.

3. Neighborhood Commercial Areas: A third color was used to identify the dozen neighborhood commercial areas in Seattle (about one for each of the major neighborhood areas).

Once the map was printed, it was very easy to see where the three colors overlapped, two colors

overlapped, etc. The final step was to have the computer calculate the sidewalk deficiencies in the

overlapping areas. They found, for example, that there were less than 3 km (2 mi) of arterial streets

that were within school walking zones, a pedestrian generator area, and a neighborhood commercial

area that did not have sidewalks on either side of the street.

There were nearly 4.8 km (3 mi) of arterial streets that were within school walking areas, but outside of neighborhood commercial areas and pedestrian generators that did not have sidewalks on

either side of the street. This was compared to a citywide deficiency of more than 32 km (20 mi) of

arterial streets that lacked sidewalks on both sides of the street.

By developing these and other numbers, the pedestrian program was able to put together packages

of information that demonstrated what could be accomplished with additional funding. What

everyone thought to be an unsolvable multi-million-dollar problem was reduced to a series of smaller, fundable projects that decisionmakers could endorse.The result was increased funding and a new

optimism that meaningful progress could be made on solving Seattle’s sidewalk deficiencies.

Sidewalks, Walkways, and Shoulders in Rural Areas 

A safe walking area must be provided outside the motor vehicle traffic travelway. Sidewalks along rural

roads should be well separated from the travelway. Isolated residential areas should have a pedestrian connection to the rest of the rural community for school access, shopping, and recreational trips.

An off-road path — also known as a "side path" — is a type of walkway used in some rural settings. This

path may be paved or unpaved, and is separated from the roadway by a grass or landscaped strip without

curbing. This maintains a rural look, but is safer and more comfortable than a shoulder.

A paved or unpaved shoulder should be provided as a minimum along the road. Paved shoulders are pre147
ferred to provide an all-weather walking surface, since they also serve bicyclists and improve the overall

safety of the road.A 1.5-m- (5-ft-) wide shoulder is acceptable for pedestrians along low-volume rural

highways. Greater width, up to 2.4 to 3.0 m (8 to 10 ft), is desirable along high-speed highways, particularly with a large number of trucks. An edgeline should be marked to separate the shoulder from the travelway.

Sidewalk Width

The width of a sidewalk depends primarily on the number of pedestrians who are expected to use the

sidewalk at a given time — high-use sidewalks should be wider than low-use sidewalks. "Street furniture"

and sidewalk cafes require extra width, too. A sidewalk width of 1.5 m (5 ft) is needed for two adult

pedestrians to comfortably walk side-by-side, and all sidewalks should be constructed to be at least this

width. The minimum sidewalk widths for cities large and small are:

Local or collector streets......................... 1.5 m (5 ft)

Arterial or major streets..........................1.8 to 2.4 m (6 to 8 ft)

CBD areas...............................................2.4 to 3.7 m (8 to 12 ft)*

Along parks, schools, and other

major pedestrian generators.....................2.4 to 3.0 m (8 to 10 ft)

*2.4-m (8-ft) minimum in commercial areas with a planter strip, 3.7-m (12-ft) minimum in commercial areas with no planter strip.

These widths represent a clear or unobstructed width. Point obstructions may be acceptable as long as

there is at least 914 mm (36 in) for wheelchair maneuvering (no less than 1,219 mm (48 in) wide as a

whole); however, every attempt should be made to locate streetlights, utility poles, signposts, fire hydrants,

mail boxes, parking meters, bus benches, and other street furniture out of the sidewalk. When that is not

possible, sidewalk furnishings and other obstructions should be located consistently so that there is a clear

travel zone for pedestrians with vision impairments and a wider sidewalk should be provided to accommodate this line of obstructions.

Similarly, when sidewalks abut storefronts, the sidewalk should be built 0.6 m (2 ft) wider to accommodate

window-shoppers and to avoid conflicts with doors opening and pedestrians entering or leaving the

buildings.

Many 1.2-m (4-ft) sidewalks were built in the past.This width does not provide adequate clearance room

or mobility for pedestrians passing in opposite directions. All new and retrofitted sidewalks should be 1.5

m (5 ft) feet or wider.

Sidewalk Buffer Width

Buffers between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic are important to provide greater levels of comfort,

security, and safety to pedestrians. Landscaped buffers provide a space for poles, signs, and other obstructions; they serve as a snow storage area; and they protect pedestrians from splash. The ideal width of a

planting strip is 1.8 m (6 ft). Minimum allowable landscape buffer widths are:

Local or collector streets........................ 0.6 to 1.2 m (2 to 4 ft)

Arterial or major streets......................... 1.2 to 1.8 m (4 to 6 ft)

With a landscaped buffer between the sidewalk and the street, care must be taken to ensure that the bus

stops are fully accessible to wheelchair users and have connections to the sidewalk. Irrigation may be

needed in areas of low precipitation.

148
Buffers also provide the added space to make curb ramps and landings accessible. When the ramps and

landings are designed properly, they are also better utilized by those pushing strollers or pulling carts and

luggage.

If a planting strip is not provided between the sidewalk and roadway, then the sidewalk width should be a

minimum of 1.8 m (6 ft).

Where landscaped sidewalk buffers cannot be provided due to constraints, on-street parking, a shoulder, or

a bike lane can serve to buffer pedestrians from motor vehicle traffic lanes.

Sidewalk Surface

Concrete is the preferred sidewalk surface, providing the longest service life and requiring the least

amount of maintenance. Asphalt is an acceptable walkway surface in rural areas and in park settings, and

crushed granite may also be an acceptable all-weather material in parks or rural areas, but they generally

require higher levels of maintenance and are less desirable for wheelchair users.

Sidewalks may be constructed with bricks and pavers if they are constructed to avoid settling; bricks

should be easy to reset or replace if they cause a tripping hazard. Also, bricks and/or pavers can cause

vibrations that are painful for pedestrians who use mobility aids and, therefore, it may be appropriate to

use bricks or pavers only for sidewalk borders in certain situations. There are stamping molds that create

the visual appearance of bricks and pavers; these have the advantages of traditional concrete without some

of the maintenance issues and roughness associated with bricks and pavers. There are commercially available products that produce a variety of aesthetically pleasing surfaces that are almost impossible to distinguish from real bricks and pavers. However, stamped materials can also have maintenance isues, since, for

example, the sidewalk may never look the same again after repairs are made.

It is also possible to enhance sidewalks aesthetics while still providing a smooth walking surface by combining a concrete main walking area with brick edging where street furniture (lights, trees, poles, etc.) can

be placed. For example, in a CBD, a 4.6-m (15-ft) total sidewalk width might include a 2.4-m (8-ft) clear

concrete sidewalk with a 2.1-m (7-ft) edge.

Sidewalk Grade and Cross-Slopes

Sidewalks should be built to accommodate all pedestrians and should be as flat as practical. Sidewalks

should be held to a running grade of 5 percent or less, if possible. However, sidewalks that follow the

grade of a street in hilly terrain cannot meet this requirement, for obvious reasons, and may follow the

grade of the street. The maximum grade for a curb ramp is 1:12 (8.3 percent).

The maximum sidewalk cross-slope is 1:50 (2 percent) to minimize travel effort for wheelchair users and

still provide drainage.At least 0.9 m (3 ft) of flat sidewalk area is required at the top of a sloped driveway

to accommodate wheelchair use. In some cases, it may be necessary to bend the sidewalk around the back

of the driveway to achieve a level surface of 0.9 m (3 ft).

Curb Ramps

Curb ramps must be provided at all intersection crossings (marked or unmarked) and midblock crosswalks

for wheelchair access. These ramps also accommodate strollers, carts, the elderly, and pedestrians with

mobility limitations. Curb ramps should be as flat as possible, but must have a slope no greater than 1:12

149
(8.3 percent). Abrupt changes in elevation at the top or bottom should be avoided. The minimum curb

ramp width is 914 mm (36 in); however, 1,219 mm (48 in) is the desirable minimum. If a curb ramp is

located where pedestrians must walk across the ramp, the ramp must have flared sides of no more than

1:10 (10 percent) slope. These flares are not needed where ramps are placed in a landscaped area. Curb

ramps also require a minimum of 914 mm (36 in) of level and clear passage (1,219 mm (48 in) or more

are desirable) at the top.

Two separate curb ramps, one for each crosswalk, should be provided at each corner of an intersection.

Diagonal curb ramps provide no directional guidance to vision-impaired pedestrians, and force wheelchair

users to maneuver in the crosswalk. Raised islands in a crossing must have at least a 1,219-mm (48-in) cutthrough that is level with the street; this is generally preferable to curb ramps, which force wheelchair

users to go up and down.

Obstacles Along the Sidewalk

The distance to the bottom of signs placed in or right next to a sidewalk should be at least 2 m (7 ft)

above the sidewalk surface to avoid injury to pedestrians. Bushes, trees, and other landscaping should be

maintained to prevent encroachment into the sidewalk. Jurisdictions should adopt ordinances requiring

local property owners to trim the landscaping they place along their frontage to maintain clear and unobstructed sidewalks. The jurisdictions should provide an inspection procedure or a system of responding to

sidewalk encroachment and maintenance complaints.

Guy wires and utility tie-downs should not be located in or across sidewalks at heights below 2 m (7 ft).

When placed adjacent to sidewalks or pedestrian walkways, the guy wires should be covered with a bright

yellow (or other high-visibility) plastic guard to make the wire more visible to pedestrians. Guy wires of

any color will not be visible to blind pedestrians and must not be located within the pedestrian route.

Other obstacles include signal controller boxes, awnings, temporary signage, newspaper racks, fire hydrants,

and similar items.

Accessibility

The easiest way to visualize accessibility requirements (grade, cross-slope, and clear width) is with the concept of a "continuous passage." Sidewalks must provide a continuous route at a 2 percent maximum crossslope at a minimum width of 0.9 m (3 ft). This does not mean that 0.9 m (3 ft) is an acceptable sidewalk

width, just that at no point shall the level area be less than 0.9 m (3 ft) wide; this applies mainly at

obstructions, driveways, and curb ramps.

Snow

Municipalities that do not remove snow on sidewalks should have an ordinance requiring property owners

to clear the snow and keep the sidewalks accessible to pedestrians. When the latter is the case, municipalities should educate property owners as to why this is important and have enforcement efforts in place to

ensure compliance.

Bus Stops and Shelters

It is generally preferable to place bus shelters between the sidewalk and the street, or between the sidewalk

150
and adjacent property, so that waiting passengers do not obstruct the flow of pedestrians along the sidewalk. Benches and other street furniture should be placed outside the walking paths to maintain the accessibility of the walkway and to provide good pedestrian service. In addition, curb ramps should be provided

at bus stops because it is not always possible for the bus to pull close enough to the curb to deploy a lift.

Lighting

Good street lighting improves the visibility, comfort, and security of pedestrians. In urban areas, it is

important to light at least the intersections and other pedestrian crossing areas. Lighting is also recommended in areas where there is a high concentration of nighttime pedestrian activity, such as churches,

schools, and community centers.Where continuous lighting is provided along wide arterial streets, it is

desirable to place the lights along both sides of the street. Continuous streetlights should be spaced to provide a relatively uniform level of light. In shopping districts or in downtown areas with high concentrations of pedestrians, it is desirable to provide pedestrian-level lighting in addition to the street lighting to

improve the comfort and security of pedestrians. The preferred pedestrian-level lights are mercury vapor

or incandescent. Low-pressure sodium lights may be more energy-efficient; however, they are undesirable

because they create considerable color distortion. Pedestrian-level lighting may also be installed in selected

areas of pedestrian activity to create a sense of intimacy and place.

Other Design Considerations

Sidewalks should be built within the public right-of-way or in a sidewalk easement along the right-ofway. This will provide access to the sidewalk for maintenance activities and will prevent the adjacent

property owners from obstructing or removing the sidewalk in the future.

Care must be taken to avoid planting trees or large bushes in the landscape buffer area that will obscure

the visibility between a pedestrian attempting to cross or enter a street and an approaching motorist. Trees

with large canopies planted between the sidewalk and street should be generally trimmed up to at least 2.4

m (8 ft) high and bushes should be kept to about 762 to 914 mm (30 to 36 in) in height. Trees with large

caliper trunks may not be appropriate near intersections and in other situations where they may block

visual sight triangles.

Meandering sidewalks are sometimes used where a wide right-of-way is available and there is a desire to

provide a high level of landscaping, such as in a park or along a waterway or other natural feature. It is

often believed that meandering sidewalks create a more pleasant walking environment. The reality is that

they unnecessarily create a longer walking distance and are inappropriate for sidewalks along a street.

Sidewalks should be built along both sides of bridges. Pedestrian rails or guard rail are required along the

outside of the bridge. On bridges with high speeds, concrete barriers between the travelway and the sidewalk may be considered to shield pedestrians from errant vehicles. However, this adds cost, weight, and

width to the bridge, and the transition from barrier to guard rail or curb at each end often creates an awkward transition for pedestrians, who must detour around the barrier to access the bridge sidewalk.

Rollover curbs should not be used next to sidewalks as they encourage motorists to park on planting strips

or sidewalks.They may be problematic for some visually impaired people, since they don’t create a definitive edge between the street and adjacent uses.

Sidewalk Depth: Concrete sidewalks should be built to a minimum depth of 101.6 mm (4 in), and to a

minimum depth of 152.4 mm (6 in) at driveways.

151
VI. Sidewalk Cost Considerations

The actual cost of providing sidewalks will be different for each region of the country and varies with the

season. Actual bid prices are also influenced by how busy contractors are at the time of construction.

The cost of constructing sidewalks alone is relatively low; typical bids run between $24 and $36 per

meters squared ($20 to $30 a square yard), which roughly translates to $43 to $64 per lineal meter ($12 to

$20 per lineal foot) for 1.8-m- (6-ft-) wide sidewalks. Therefore, sidewalks on both sides of the roadway

can run roughly between $93,000 and $155,000 per kilometer ($150,000 and $250,000 per mile) (costs

from Oregon DOT, 1999).

Factors to consider when calculating the cost of sidewalks:

1. Presence of curb and gutter: The costs of providing curb and gutter, which presumes the need to

also provide a street drainage system, run much higher than the cost of sidewalk alone. A standard perpendicular curb ramp and top landing need a minimum border width of almost 3.7 m (12 ft) at intersections if there is a 152.4-mm (6-in) curb. A 152.4-mm (6-in) curb reduces the minimum border

width to 3 m (10 ft). Yet, on many urban streets, this work must be performed prior to installing sidewalks. If this is the case, only the cost of sidewalks and curb ramps should be attributed to expenditures

for pedestrians – catch basins are provided to drain the roadway surface used by motor vehicle traffic.

2. Number of driveways: To comply with ADA, many existing driveways must be replaced with ones

that provide a level passage at least 0.9 (3 ft) wide. It can also be advantageous to inventory all existing

driveways to see if any can be closed, resulting in a cost-savings.

3. Number of intersections: While intersections represent a reduction in the sidewalk, curb ramps are

required where sidewalks cross intersections and the cost of providing additional traffic control at each

intersection should be considered.

4. Obstacles to be removed: The cost for moving or removing obstacles such as utility poles, signposts,

and fire hydrants vary too much to be itemized here; however, they are required to be moved if they

obstruct access. These costs must be calculated individually for each project.

5. Structures: While minor sidewalk projects rarely involve new structures such as a bridge, many projects

with significant cuts and fills may require retaining walls and/or culvert extensions. The costs of retaining walls must be calculated individually for each project.

6. Right-of-way: While most sidewalk projects can be built within existing rights-of-way (especially infill

projects), some may require some right-of-way easement. An alternative to acquiring right-of-way is to

narrow the roadway, which should consider the needs of bicyclists (e.g., through bike lanes or shoulders,

at a minimum of 1.5 m (5 ft).

7. Miscellaneous factors: Planters, irrigation, benches, decorative lampposts, and other aesthetic

improvements cost money, but they are usually well worth it if the impetus for the project is to create a

more pleasant and inviting walking environment.

When project costs appear to be escalating due to one or more of the above-listed items, especially retaining walls or acquiring right-of-way, consideration may be given to narrowing the sidewalk in constrained

areas as a last resort. The full sidewalk width should be resumed in non-constrained areas — this is preferable to providing a narrow sidewalk throughout, or dropping the project because of one difficult section.

Tips to Reduce Total Costs:

1. Stand-alone vs. integrated within another project: Sidewalks should always be included in road

construction projects. Stand-alone sidewalk projects cost more than the same work performed as part of

a larger project. Sidewalks can be piggybacked to projects such as surface preservation, water or sewer

152
lines, or placing utilities underground. Besides the monetary savings, the political fallout is reduced,

since the public doesn’t perceive an agency as being inefficient (it is very noticeable if an agency works

on a road, then comes back to do more work later). The reduced impacts on traffic are a bonus to integration.

2. Combining Projects: A cost-savings can be achieved by combining several small sidewalk projects

into one big one. This can occur even if the sidewalks are under different jurisdictions, or even in different localities, if they are close to each other. The basic principle is that bid prices drop as quantities

increase.

VII. Bibliography and List of References

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Designs of

Highways and Streets, 1984.

Axelson, P. et al., Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Federal Highway Administration,Washington, DC,

July 1999.

Institute of Transportation Engineers, Design of Pedestrian Facilities — Recommended Practices: Providing Safety

and Mobility, 2001.

153
154

Table 1. Recommended Guidelines for New Sidewalk/Walkway Installation.

Roadway Classification Sidewalk/Walkway Future Phasing

and Land Use Requirements

Rural Highways Shoulders preferred, with Secure/preserve 

(< 400 ADT) minimum of 0.9 m (3 ft) right-of-way (ROW)

for future sidewalks.

Rural Highways 1.5-m (5-ft) shoulders Secure/preserve ROW for

(400 to 2000 ADT) preferred, minimum of 1.2 m future sidewalks.

(4 ft) required.

Rural/Suburban Highway Sidewalks or side paths Secure/preserve ROW for

(ADT > 2,000 and preferred. Minimum of future sidewalks. 

less than 1 dwelling unit (d.u.) / 1.8-m (6-ft) shoulders 

.4 hectares (ha) [1 d.u. / acre]) required.

Suburban Highway Sidewalks on both sides required. 

(1 to 4 d.u. / .4 ha

[1 to 4 d.u. / acre])

Major Arterial (residential) Sidewalks on both sides required.

Urban Collector and Minor Sidewalks on both sides required.

Arterial (residential)

Urban Local Street Sidewalks on both sides Secure/preserve ROW for

(residential — less than preferred. Minimum of 1.5-m future sidewalks.

1 d.u./ .4 ha [1 d.u. / acre]) (5-ft) shoulders required.

Urban Local Street Both sides preferred. Second side required if

(residential — 1 to 4 d.u. density becomes greater 

/ .4 ha [1 to 4 d.u. / acre]) than 4 d.u. / .4 ha

(4 d.u. / acre) or if schools, 

bus stops, etc. are added.

Local Street Sidewalks on both sides required.

(residential — more than 

4 d.u. / .4 ha [4 d.u. / acre])

All Commercial Urban Streets Sidewalks on both sides required.

All Streets in Sidewalks on both sides 

Industrial Areas preferred. Minimum of 1.5-m 

(5-ft) shoulders required. 

1 acre = 0.4 hectares (ha)
Appendix C

Recommended Guidelines

for Crosswalk Installation

Photo by Cara Seidermann

155
Marked crosswalks serve two purposes: (1) they tell the pedestrian the best place to cross, and (2) they clarify that a legal crosswalk exists at a particular location.

Marked crosswalks are one tool to get pedestrians safely across the street.When considering marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, the question should not simply be: "Should I provide a marked crosswalk

or not?" Instead, the question should be: "Is this an appropriate tool for getting pedestrians across the

street?" Regardless of whether marked crosswalks are used, there remains the fundamental objective of getting pedestrians safely across the street.

In most cases, marked crosswalks are best used in combination with other treatments (e.g., curb extensions,

raised crossing islands, traffic signals, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lighting, traffic-calming measures, etc.). Think of marked crosswalks as one of a progression of design treatments. If one treatment does

not adequately accomplish the task, then move on to the next one. The failure of one particular treatment

is not a license to give up and do nothing. In all cases, the final design must address the goal of getting

pedestrians across the road safely.

Marked pedestrian crosswalks may be used to delineate preferred pedestrian paths across roadways under

the following conditions:

1. At locations with stop signs or traffic signals. Vehicular traffic might block pedestrian traffic when 

stopping for a stop sign or red light; marking crosswalks may help to reduce this occurrence.

2. At non-signalized street crossing locations in designated school zones. Use of adult crossing guards,

school signs and markings, and/or traffic signals with pedestrian signals (when warranted) should be 

used in conjunction with the marked crosswalk, as needed.

3. At non-signalized locations where engineering judgment dictates that the number of motor vehicle 

lanes, pedestrian exposure, average daily traffic (ADT), posted speed limit, and geometry of the

location would make the use of specially designated crosswalks desirable for traffic/pedestrian safety 

and mobility. This must consider the conditions listed below.

Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient (i.e., without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals, and pedestrian signals when warranted, or other substantial crossing improvement) and should not be used under the

following conditions:

1. Where the speed limit exceeds 64.4 km/h (40 mi/h).

2. 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.

3. On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or 

will soon have) an ADT of 15,000 or greater.

Street crossing locations should be routinely reviewed to consider the following available options:

• Option 1 — No special provisions needed.

• Option 2 — Provide a marked crosswalk alone.

• Option 3 — Install other crossing improvements (with or without a marked crosswalk) to reduce vehicle

speeds, shorten crossing distances, increase the likelihood of motorists stopping and yielding, and/or 

other outcome.

The spacing of marked crosswalks should also be considered so that they are not placed too close together.

156
A more conservative use of crosswalks is generally preferred. Thus, it is recommended that in situations

where marked crosswalks alone are acceptable that a higher priority be placed on their use at locations

having a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour (or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). In all cases, good engineering judgment must be applied.

Other Factors

Distance of Marked Crosswalks From Signalized Intersections

Marked crosswalks should not be installed in close proximity to traffic signals, since pedestrians should be

encouraged to cross at the signal in most situations. The minimum distance from a signal for installing a

marked crosswalk should be determined by local traffic engineers based on pedestrian crossing demand,

type of roadway, traffic volume, and other factors. The objective of adding a marked crosswalk is to channel pedestrians to safer crossing points. It should be understood, however, that pedestrian crossing behavior

may be difficult to control merely by the addition of marked crosswalks. The new marked crosswalk

should not unduly restrict platooned traffic, and should also be consistent with marked crosswalks at other

unsignalized locations in the area.

Other Treatments

In addition to installing marked crosswalks (or, in some cases, instead of installing marked crosswalks), there

are other treatments that should be considered to provide safer and easier crossings for pedestrians at problem locations. Examples of these pedestrian improvements include:

• Providing raised medians (or raised crossing islands) on multi-lane roads.

• Installing traffic signals and pedestrian signals where warranted, and where serious pedestrian 

crossing problems exist.

• Reducing the exposure distance for pedestrians by:

— Providing curb extensions.

— Providing pedestrian islands.

— Reducing four-lane undivided road sections to two through lanes with a

left-turn bay (or a two-way left-turn lane), sidewalks, and bicycle lanes.

• When marked crosswalks are used on uncontrolled multi-lane roads, consideration should be 

given to installing advance stop lines as much as 9.1 m (30 ft) prior to the crosswalk (with a 

STOP HERE FOR CROSSWALK sign) in each direction to reduce the likelihood of a 

multiple-threat pedestrian collision.

• Bus stops should be located on the far side of uncontrolled marked crosswalks.

• Installing traffic-calming measures to slow vehicle speeds and/or reduce cut-through traffic.

Such measures may include:

— Raised crossings (raised crosswalks, raised intersections).

— Street-narrowing measures (chicanes, slow points, "skinny street" designs).

— Intersection designs (traffic mini-circles, diagonal diverters).

— Others (see ITE Traffic-Calming Guide for further details).(1)

157
Some of these traffic-calming measures are better suited to local or neighborhood streets than to arterial

streets:

• Providing adequate nighttime street lighting for pedestrians in areas with nighttime pedestrian 

activity where illumination is inadequate.

• Designing safer intersections and driveways for pedestrians (e.g., crossing islands, tighter turn 

radii), which take into consideration the needs of pedestrians.

These guidelines were developed in an FHWA report entitled Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked

Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations.(1) This report may be found at: www.walkinginfo.org/rd/devices.htm.

In developing these proposed U.S. guidelines for marked crosswalks and other pedestrian measures, consideration was given not only to the research results in this study, but also to crosswalk guidelines and related

pedestrian safety research in Australia, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, The Netherlands,

Norway, and Sweden (see references 2-8).

References

1. Zegeer, C., J. Stewart, and H. Huang, Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled

Locations, Report No. FHWA-RD-01-142, FHWA,Washington, DC, May 2001.

2. Safety of Vulnerable Road Users, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD),

August 1998.

3. Ekman, L., Pedestrian Safety in Sweden, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-091, FHWA,Washington, DC,

December 1999.

4. Hummel,T., Dutch Pedestrian Safety Research Review, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-092, FHWA,

Washington, DC, December 1999.

5. Pedestrian Safety:Analyses and Safety Measures, Danish Road Directorate, Division of Traffic Safety and

Environment, Copenhagen, June 1998.

6. Van Houten, R., Canadian Research on Pedestrian Safety, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-090, FHWA,

Washington, DC, December 1999.

7. Cairney, P., Pedestrian Safety in Australia, Report No. FHWA-RD-99-093, FHWA,Washington, DC,

December 1999.

8. Davies, D., Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom,

Report No. FHWA-RD-99-089, FHWA,Washington, DC, December 1999.

158