EVALUATION OF THE

FOCUSED APPROACH TO PEDESTRIAN

SAFETY PROGRAM

PREPARED FOR THE

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF SAFETY

FEBRUARY 2, 2009

Prepared by 

The Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 
Executive Summary 

This report summarizes the results of an evaluation of the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. The study 

was done by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center at the request of the 

FHWA Office of Safety (HSA). Five of the 19 “focus” locations were chosen for this 

evaluation based on geographic diversity, number and types of Program activities, and 

the availability of data about Program implementation. The study consisted of semistructured telephone interviews with 29 pedestrian safety stakeholders (mostly from 

government agencies) across the five locations. 

The key findings from the study are: 

• Being designated a focus location by the FHWA helped raise awareness of 

pedestrian safety problems and gave them a legitimacy not had previously. It also 

helped draw attention and resources to generate momentum for addressing 

pedestrian issues. 

• Participants found the course offerings, technical assistance, conference calls, and 

web conferences valuable for: 

o Improving participants’ understanding of and attitudes toward 

pedestrian safety. 

o Increasing participants’ ability and confidence to advocate for 

pedestrian safety improvements. 

o Communicating practical techniques for improving pedestrian safety. 

• Demand for the course offerings far exceeded their capacity. 

• Several focus locations have developed follow-on pedestrian safety training, 

primarily with the assistance of the FHWA Resource Center. 

• The mix of professions represented in the courses—both within transportation 

agencies and between transportation agencies and other state and local agencies, 

especially public health and law enforcement—fostered relationships among 

attendees that have been helpful in continuing to address pedestrian safety 

problems. 

• Most focus locations have implemented or are planning to implement 

countermeasures and initiatives that will improve pedestrian safety. In some 

locations, this involves developing statewide or regional pedestrian safety plans. 

Each location also mentioned some practical strategies being planned or already in 

use based on content from the courses. These were generally small-scale changes 

such as installing pedestrian countdown timers or improving striping at crosswalks. 

Several locations are planning substantial improvements such as infrastructure 

changes for traffic calming or installing pedestrian refuge islands. 

• The Program has also spurred changes in policies, business processes, and 

institutional structures focused on pedestrian safety. 
The main recommendations for improvements to the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety are: 

• Offer more courses. 

• Offer courses regularly so that new employees can be trained as they are hired. 

• Create course content that can be easily customized to meet the specific needs of 

the intended audiences. 

• Explore educational strategies other than the courses, conference calls, and 

technical assistance (e.g., web-based learning, peer learning). 

• Develop outreach and education strategies and materials for FHWA division offices 

to distribute in their states. This could include: 

o Outreach material for senior managers and policy makers to emphasize 

the importance of pedestrian safety and how the Focused Approach to 

Pedestrian Safety Program can help to improve pedestrian safety. 

o Educational resources such as studies of “best practices” or examples of 

successful pedestrian safety improvements under specific conditions 

(e.g., size of the metropolitan area, nature of the transportation 

network, volume of pedestrians). 

o Tools to help agencies analyze pedestrian safety and identify 

appropriate solutions. 

• Promote the technical assistance component of the Program. 

• Develop tools and strategies to continually monitor and evaluate Program 

effectiveness. 

• Conduct further research to provide a thorough understanding of the effectiveness 

of various pedestrian countermeasures and the keys to successful Program 

outcomes. 

• Consider modifying the strategy for determining which localities should receive 

Focused Approach to Pedestrian resources to reflect a combination of need and 

interest. 
Table of Contents 

I. Background ..................................................................................... 1

II. Evaluation Approach.......................................................................... 2

III. Findings ......................................................................................... 6

Program Outcomes........................................................................ 6

Program Delivery.........................................................................12

IV. Recommendations............................................................................16

Program Content and Delivery ........................................................17

Outreach and Education ................................................................20

Program Evaluation ......................................................................21

V. Conclusion .....................................................................................23

Appendix A. Case Studies.......................................................................24

Appendix B. Interview Questions .............................................................46

List of Abbreviations 

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CMAP Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation 

GTSAC Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission 

HSA FHWA Office of Safety 

IDOT Illinois Department of Transportation 

MDOT Michigan Department of Transportation 

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization 

NYMTC New York Metropolitan Transportation Council 

PBIC Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center 

PSAP Pedestrian Safety Action Plan 
1

I. Background

This report presents the results of an evaluation of the pedestrian component of the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety (HSA) Focused Approach to 

Safety Program. Launched in 2004, the Program’s novel approach concentrates 

funding and technical assistance in specific locations with the highest fatalities and 

fatality rates in three emphasis areas—intersections, roadway departures, and 

pedestrian safety. 

This study is the third in a series of evaluations that the Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center (Volpe Center) has conducted for the Office of Safety. The first study, 

A Long-Term Plan for Evaluating the FHWA’s Office of Safety Programs, completed in 

2005, recommended a two-phased approach to implementing program evaluations and 

measuring effectiveness. Phase 1 of the evaluation was to make short-term 

improvements to existing programs to improve their design, process, and 

implementation and to define measurable outcomes and a data collection plan for a 

longer-term assessment of program effectiveness. The second phase is to implement 

the longer term assessment. 

The second Volpe Center study, completed in July 2007, was the first step in 

implementing the Phase 1 recommendation from the study referenced above. The 

authors examined the Focused Approach to Safety Pilot Program and provided 

recommendations for improving the pilot program’s design and implementation as 

well as its ability to be evaluated. 

The study described in this report examines the design, process, and implementation 

of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. The Program provides training 

and technical assistance to the 14 states with more than 150 pedestrian fatalities and 

a pedestrian fatality rate above 2.5 deaths per 100,000 and the four cities with the 

most pedestrian fatalities, based on 2005 data. The Program has three learning 

activities: pedestrian safety courses, technical assistance, and regular conference 

calls and web conferences. 

The three courses offered by the Program are: 

• Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

This two-day course shows state and local officials how to develop a pedestrian 

safety action plan (PSAP) tailored to their communities. It also assists agencies 

in enhancing their existing pedestrian safety programs and countermeasures, 

including identifying safety problems, analyzing data, and selecting the best 

solutions. 

• Designing for Pedestrian Safety 

This two-day course shows state and local officials how to improve pedestrian 

safety using design and engineering solutions. 
2

• Planning and Designing for Pedestrian Safety 

This three-day course combines the curricula of the two other courses to help 

state and local officials learn how to address pedestrian safety issues through 

planning, design, and engineering solutions. 

The target audience for these courses is engineers, planners, traffic safety and 

enforcement professionals, public health and injury-prevention professionals, and 

decision-makers who are seeking ideas and solutions for changes to the physical 

environment that improve pedestrian safety. 

The second Program component is technical assistance, which is offered to focus 

locations to help them in planning and analysis. The technical assistance is provided 

by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (PBIC), as a subcontractor to VHB, a 

consulting firm under contract with FHWA. 

The third component is regular conference calls and web conferences. These provide 

a forum for FHWA staff, Program consultants and instructors, and representatives 

from the focus cities and states to exchange ideas and discuss the progress of their 

pedestrian safety initiatives. 

II. Evaluation Approach

This evaluation set out to: 

• Determine whether the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program 

produced the expected short- and long-term outcomes; 

• Investigate trends and patterns in Program outcomes to better understand 

critical success factors; 

• Provide specific, actionable recommendations for improving the design and 

implementation of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program; and 

• Establish the foundation for a broader assessment of the longer term outcomes 

and impacts of the pedestrian component of the Focused Approach to 

Pedestrian Safety Program. 

Figure 1 illustrates the theory underlying the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

Program. In the short term, participation in the program activities is expected to: 

• Improve awareness and understanding of pedestrian issues; 

• Increase knowledge, skills, and abilities to address these issues; 

• Help with the identification and planning of policy, business process, 

institutional, and infrastructure changes that will improve pedestrian safety. 
3

These short-term outcomes are expected to lead to long-term outcomes such as 

the implementation of new countermeasures, policies, business processes, and 

organizational changes that will improve pedestrian safety. If successful, these 

outcomes will ultimately lead to a safer pedestrian environment. 

Figure 1. Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program Theory 

In implementing the evaluation model shown in Figure 1, participants’ learning 

experiences can be categorized into Kirkpatrick’s four levels of learning:1 

1. Reaction of students: Did the participants enjoy the training? Did they find it 

relevant to their jobs?

2. Learning: Did the training increase participants’ knowledge?

3. Behavior: Did the training change participants’ behavior? Did they apply what 

they learned? 

4. Results: Did the participants’ behavior have an impact upon the environment? 

PBIC prepared a report on the Focused Approach to Safety Program2 summarizing its 

progress from September 2004 to December 2007. It collected comprehensive 

information on Kirkpatrick’s first level of evaluation, the reaction of students to the 

pedestrian safety courses. The evaluators also gathered self-assessments from 

participants to gauge their knowledge of pedestrian safety before and after the 

courses (level two evaluations). Finally, PBIC collected data from the focus locations 

on countermeasures and initiatives implemented as a result of the training (levels 

three and four). 

Building on the results of the PBIC evaluation, the current evaluation examined five 

focus locations—New York City, Chicago, and the states of California, Georgia, and 

Michigan. The primary emphasis was on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels three and four: 

• Did participants change their behavior because of Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety activities? 

 

1

 Kirkpatrick, Donald and James Kirkpatrick. 2006. “Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels” 

Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc. (San Francisco, CA) 

2

 University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, “Developing and Implementing a 

Pedestrian Safety Action Plan,” February 2008. 
4

• Was this change in behavior sustained over time? 

• Did the changes in behavior lead to any of the short- or long-term outcomes shown 

in Figure 1? 

The five focus locations for this study were chosen based on: 

• Geographic diversity – States with both rural and urban populations and from 

various geographic regions. 

• Number and type of Program activities – Locations with a relatively high 

number of Program activities. 

• Information available for data collection - States where course administrators 

consistently collected and compiled participant information. 

• Time after Program activities were delivered - Locations where some 

Program activities were conducted in FY06 to assess the Program’s longer term 

influence (22-33 months). 

• Focus city - States containing a focus city. 

Table 1. Evaluation Locations 

Location Year Courses Technical 

Assistance Notes 

FY06 5 

California 

FY07 10 

• Many Program activities 

• Large state with diverse areas to study 

• Los Angeles focus city 

FY06 1 1 

Georgia 

FY07 2 

• Urban and suburban areas 

• Technical assistance 

FY06 2 1 

Chicago 

FY07 2 

• Focus city 

• Technical assistance 

FY06 4 

Michigan 

FY07 2 

• Focus city; Detroit focus city 

• State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan 

FY06 8 New York 

City FY07 4 

• Many Program activities 

• Large state with diverse areas to study 

• Focus city: New York City 
5

Data for this study were collected using semi-structured telephone interviews with 

key pedestrian safety actors from a variety of organizations in each of the five focus 

locations. In each location, interviews were conducted with the FHWA Division Office 

staff in charge of pedestrian safety and with the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety coordinator, usually a person from the state department of transportation or 

the metropolitan planning organization (MPO). Other interviewees were chosen based 

on recommendations made by these two key contacts, including: 

• Active in pedestrian issues at the state and local levels. 

• Responsible for pedestrian safety in a locality that has made notable progress 

addressing pedestrian safety issues since the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety Program activities were delivered. 

• Involved in the development of the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP). 

• Involved in pedestrian safety follow-up initiatives that were influenced by 

Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety activities. 

Twenty-nine interviews were conducted across the five locations. Table 2 summarizes 

the mix of interviewees for each location. 

Table 2. Interviewees 

Location/ 

Representative California Georgia Chicago Michigan New York 

FHWA 1 1 1 2 2 

State DOT 2 1 — 2 — 

MPO — 1 1 1 1 

City 1 1 1 1 2 

County 1 — — — — 

Consulting firm — 1 — — — 

Public Health 

Organization 1 — — 1 — 

Advocacy Group 1 1 1 — — 

Total 7 6 4 7 5 

Interviewees were asked: 

• How the Program was implemented in their location; 

• What changes, if any, have occurred in pedestrian safety policies, practices, 

behaviors, or organization that can be attributed (at least in part) to 

participation in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program; 

• What factors contributed to or detracted from the Program’s success; 
6

• What lessons they learned from participation in the Program that could help 

other focus locations in implementing pedestrian safety improvements; and 

• What recommendations they had for improving the Program.3 

III. Findings 

This section describes the major findings from the interviews. The findings are divided 

into three categories: Program outcomes, Program delivery, and Program evaluation. 

Program Outcomes

Based on the five locations in the study sample, the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety Program has achieved many of its short-and long-term goals. Following are 

some highlights of the results reported by interviewees. 

The Program raised the visibility of pedestrian safety in focus locations. 

The “focus location” designation raised the awareness and visibility of pedestrian 

safety in the locations studied. It helped stimulate dialogue on pedestrian safety that 

probably would not have otherwise occurred. The most striking example of this was in 

Chicago. Staff from the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) were 

surprised to learn that the city of Chicago had the third-highest number of pedestrian 

fatalities in the country. Until then, their regular safety data analyses did not include 

pedestrian safety. 

Before considering actions to improve pedestrian safety, CMAP wanted to understand 

the nature of the problems such as high-injury locations and typical crash causes. 

Without this information, choosing the best pedestrian safety measures would be 

difficult—educated guesses at best. CMAP took advantage of the technical assistance 

offered by the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program for help conducting 

the extensive data analysis necessary to allow for sound judgments about pedestrian 

safety improvements. The results of the data analysis were used to decide how to 

best approach pedestrian safety problems. For example, the mayor of Chicago 

commissioned the Mayor’s Pedestrian Advisory Council to provide guidance on 

pedestrian issues in the city. 

The Program also gave pedestrian safety issues legitimacy as an important component 

of overall transportation safety. For example, many interviewees commented that 

engineers, in particular, who participated in the training left with a new awareness 

and sense of responsibility for pedestrian safety. In New York, interviewees said that, 

because of the Program activities, traffic planners have elevated the importance of 

pedestrian safety so that it is no longer secondary to traffic flow. Other interviewees 

noted that, because the training was sponsored by the Federal government, it gave 

 

3

 See Appendix B for the interview guide. 
7

the topic more legitimacy than locally generated training would. This has helped build 

support for “mainstreaming” pedestrian safety considerations so that they are part of 

the normal transportation project development process rather than being considered 

a special task and often included as an afterthought. 

The Program helped draw attention and resources and generate momentum for 

addressing pedestrian safety issues. 

FHWA’s involvement in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program, combined 

with out-of-state course instructors, gave the topic a gravitas and credibility that 

locally produced awareness and training initiatives had not. Interviewees reported 

that the focus location designation conveyed the severity of the problem to others 

and frequently drew additional state and local funding for pedestrian safety 

initiatives. For instance, interviewees in Michigan stated that they did not use any of 

their targeted safety funding to address pedestrian safety until after participation in 

the Program. 

The Program also generated momentum for improving pedestrian safety. For example, 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which has had four employees 

dedicated solely to pedestrian and bike safety since the late 1990s, took advantage of 

the Program’s activities to begin to focus and expand its pedestrian safety work. They 

used the focus state designation to “take all the training they could get.” Similarly, 

Chicago interviewees said that the focus city designation helped draw resources to 

pedestrian safety tasks. One interviewee noted “enforcement people didn’t realize 

what they could do or that they could advocate for improvements in pedestrian 

safety.” Including personnel from a variety of organizations in the courses also helped 

spread the momentum generated by the courses to non-transportation agencies 

Interviewees from New York said that the high number of course offerings, and 

subsequently course attendees, helped create a critical mass of city employees across 

several disciplines—planning, operations, law enforcement, design, and construction—

that has helped shift priorities toward greater concern for pedestrian issues. 

The Program improved participants’ understanding of and attitudes toward 

pedestrian safety issues. 

The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety courses, technical assistance, conference 

calls, and web conferences helped participants better understand and appreciate 

pedestrian safety issues. Some interviewees said that the training made them more 

aware of the importance of pedestrian safety. For course attendees who were already 

familiar with pedestrian safety issues, the courses reinvigorated their interest in 

pedestrian safety. As one interviewee said, “The training gave deeper knowledge and 

more confidence to implement changes. A lot of what is currently being implemented 

is due to attitude changes as a result of the training.” 

The training was particularly valuable in reinforcing the importance of pedestrian 

safety among engineers, who tended to have less exposure to pedestrian issues than 

planners. For example, some interviewees said that engineers were often not aware 
8

that many pedestrian countermeasures are relatively inexpensive. As one interviewee 

remarked, “Some engineers came in confident that they knew enough about 

pedestrian safety but came out with their eyes opened a little.” 

The Program increased the ability and confidence of participants to advocate for 

pedestrian safety improvements. 

The Program helped draw resources to pedestrian issues by improving the ability of 

local transportation professionals to communicate effectively the importance of 

pedestrian safety. The courses and conference calls, for example, provided 

presentations and real life examples of “before and after” cases that participants 

found helpful when advocating for pedestrian safety improvements in their 

jurisdictions. One interviewee noted, “The Program really provided support for things 

the staff knew about, but the public is unfamiliar with.” 

Some interviewees commented that the Program increased participants’ confidence in 

proposing and defending pedestrian safety initiatives. One interviewee from a rural 

county reported that the county was reluctant to take risks on unfamiliar pedestrian 

safety countermeasures because of the possibility of failure. However, when the 

Federal government promoted these countermeasures and provided guidelines for 

their implementation, the county became sufficiently confident in the practices to 

introduce them to local communities. Another interviewee said the courses gave staff 

increased confidence that allowed them to be more aggressive and confident about 

implementing pedestrian safety countermeasures. 

The Program provided participants with practical tools and techniques for 

assessing and solving pedestrian safety problems. 

Interviewees stated that the courses expanded their knowledge of techniques for 

assessing pedestrian safety problems and developing strategies and countermeasures 

to address these issues. One interviewee said that the courses helped engineers 

understand how to implement pedestrian access accommodations and crash reduction 

strategies. Another interviewee noted that he saw a real shift in the state ’s approach 

to pedestrian safety. After participation in the training, DOT staff began to consider a 

much broader array of options for addressing pedestrian safety. Another interviewee 

echoed that sentiment, noting that the courses gave the team working on the 

pedestrian/bicycle focus area of the State Strategic Highway Safety Plan an increased 

understanding of pedestrian issues and a broader set of solutions for addressing them. 

Participants said that the most valuable parts of the courses were the visual examples 

and the field exercises involving analysis of pedestrian safety problems at a real-world 

location, especially locations already targeted for pedestrian safety improvements. 

For example, the field exercises for the courses offered in Atlanta studied a location 

that the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) had already slated for various 

improvements, including some to address current pedestrian safety problems. The 

project will include some of the suggestions generated by class participants. The 

consultant working on the project reported that, “GDOT has always been open to new 
9

ideas on pedestrian safety, but there was a real shift with this project. The scope of 

work was more specific and complete—not the typical generic version.” 

After participating in the Program, GDOT engineers are looking at options that they 

might not have considered without the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

courses. In the past, the engineers were concerned about the potential effect of 

pedestrian improvements on traffic flow in the location. The course made them 

realize that “the impact [of pedestrian safety improvements] is not so significant for 

vehicles, and the proposed improvements for pedestrian safety were more 

important.” 

The Program helped create and strengthen partnerships among professionals 

from a variety of disciplines to work on issues related to pedestrians and 

pedestrian safety. 

The Program provided a forum for a crosssection of professionals to share ideas and 

concerns about pedestrian safety. In each focus 

location, a diverse set of professionals 

participated in the Program’s learning 

opportunities, including people from inside and 

outside the transportation planning and 

operations community. In addition to 

transportation engineers and planners, 

attendees included law enforcement personnel, 

public health professionals, and public officials 

from a variety of state and local government 

agencies. Some locations also included 

advocacy groups and consultants. This mix 

played an important role in initiating or 

strengthening conversations between 

transportation professionals and their counterparts in other disciplines. In addition, 

the attendees’ diversity encouraged an interdisciplinary approach to pedestrian safety 

and promoted the development of partnerships to implement solutions. 

In Chicago, attendees took advantage of the opportunity provided by the pedestrian 

safety courses to expand their network of colleagues and create a diverse 

“community of practice.” In Michigan, interviewees said that including attendees 

from professions not directly related to transportation increased awareness and 

understanding of the connection between planning, engineering, operations, and 

public health and safety. 

Attendees’ Accolades 

 “Quality of presenter was absolutely 

phenomenal.” 

“Kudos to FHWA” 

 “My enthusiasm for pedestrian safety has 

spread to others in my office.” 

“Courses definitely addressed a need.” 

“Training has definitely led to changes in 

how [course attendees] consider 

pedestrian issues in their projects.” 

“The Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety has addressed “willful ignorance” 

by raising the visibility of pedestrian 

safety.” 
10

The Program spurred changes in policies and business processes aimed at 

improving pedestrian safety. 

Interviewees provided many examples of changes in pedestrian policies, procedures, 

and business processes that they believed came out of knowledge and skills included 

in Program activities. While some of these changes were in process before the 

Program, interviewees reported that the Program gave them more momentum. 

Following are a few of examples of these changes: 

• In Chicago, CMAP and the Mayor’s Pedestrian Advisory Council developed 

recommendations for changes to the Procedures Manual produced by the 

Illinois Department of Transportation’s (IDOT) Bureau of Design and 

Environment. IDOT is currently evaluating these recommendations. 

• The City of Chicago pedestrian safety staff is working with the city’s police 

department to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of data 

collected at crash scenes. 

• FHWA’s Michigan Division Office has used information from the Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety training and another course on road safety 

audits to implement the state’s first road safety audit focusing on pedestrians. 

Traffic and safety specialists from throughout the state have volunteered their 

time to conduct this audit. Managers at the Michigan Department of 

Transportation (MDOT) are exploring ways to conduct additional audits. 

• Caltrans decided to promote the development of pedestrian safety action plans 

by local governments throughout the state. To help local governments in this 

task, Caltrans is working with the FHWA Resource Center to develop templates 

for typical pedestrian safety action plans that local governments can use as a 

basis for their plan. 

• The City of Detroit—a one-time focus city—now considers pedestrian safety in 

all transportation improvement projects, including signal modifications. 

• Policy makers in some local governments in Michigan were reluctant to 

introduce new pedestrian safety countermeasures out of concern that they 

would be unsafe and open their jurisdiction up to liability lawsuits. To address 

this, MDOT and the state Attorney General’s Office prepared a presentation on 

legal liability for the countermeasures that most concerned local governments. 

This presentation helped ease local governments’ concerns. MDOT has 

presented this material to a number of groups, including a statewide 

conference on community health. 

• Georgia’s PSAP recommends changes to policies and practices such as updating 

the driver’s manual to include pedestrian safety issues; developing a plan to 

identify educational programs for pedestrian safety; promoting pedestrian 

safety with messages on buses; and encouraging or funding police efforts to 

increase speed enforcement in areas with high pedestrian volumes. While 
11

GDOT does not have the authority to implement all of these recommendations, 

it is strongly encouraging jurisdictions to adopt them. 

The Program has played a role in creating new institutional structures and 

forums or strengthening existing structures focused on pedestrian safety. 

Below are some examples of institutional structures that were created or 

strengthened as a result of the Program: 

• The City of Chicago formed the Mayor’s Pedestrian Advisory Council to improve 

pedestrian safety and promote policies and practices to enhance the overall 

pedestrian environment. The council is multi-disciplinary, including members 

from public health, advocacy organizations, and business organizations. The 

chair of the council is a pediatrician who specializes in traumatic injuries and 

fatalities in children. 

• Caltrans, responding to increased interest in pedestrian safety generated by 

the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program, worked with a pedestrian 

advocacy group to sponsor a conference—the Pedestrian Safety and Advocacy 

Conference—held on September 19-20, 2008. This conference encourages and 

strengthened collaboration among those responsible for pedestrian safety 

programs and policies. There were attendees from a variety of professions 

involved in pedestrian safety, such as law enforcement, advocacy groups, local 

governments, and Caltrans staff. 

• In Michigan, each focus area on the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan had 

an “action team” assigned to develop strategies on reducing fatalities. The 

Program helped strengthen the pedestrian and bicycle action team by giving it 

important tools and techniques for addressing pedestrian safety. It also helped 

team members feel more confident about their contributions and improved 

cooperation among the different professions represented on the action team. 

The Program has resulted in a greater consideration of pedestrian safety in the 

planning process. 

Several of the focus locations have instituted new or improved procedures for 

collecting and analyzing pedestrian crash data. In addition, some locations have 

developed or are developing Pedestrian Safety Action Plans informed by content from 

the training and technical assistance provided by the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety Program. Other areas have incorporated more pedestrian-safety-related 

projects in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans, Unified Planning Work Programs, and 

regional transportation plans. For example: 

• CMAP in Chicago used the course content on pedestrian safety countermeasures 

to develop pedestrian safety-related projects and recommendations that have 

been incorporated in its 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. A Los Angeles 

suburb is incorporating elements of the pedestrian safety training into the land 

use and circulation element of its long-range land use and zoning plans. 
12

• Course participants from the Capital District Transportation Committee, the 

MPO for the Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area, reported that they 

used lessons from the courses to introduce safer, pedestrian-friendly design 

concepts into local planning studies. 

• In Georgia, the Atlanta Regional Commission included recommendations coming 

out of the training in its 2007 Atlanta Region Bicycle Transportation and 

Pedestrian Walkways Plan. In addition, the Atlanta Regional Commission plans 

to update the Transportation Improvement Program blueprint to include 

pedestrian and bicycle considerations, using a formula for project prioritization 

from their Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. 

Many pedestrian improvements have been implemented or are under 

consideration in the focus locations since participation in the Program. 

Interviewees in every focus location gave examples of pedestrian improvements that 

have been implemented as a result of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

Program. Improvements ranged from modest, small scale, inexpensive 

countermeasures up to major infrastructure changes. Small-scale changes include 

zebra striping on crosswalks, high-visibility signage, and in-pavement crosswalk 

lighting. Interviewees also mentioned countermeasures that require a bit more 

resources to implement but do not fundamentally change traffic patterns in the area. 

These include countermeasures such as pedestrian countdown signals; new mid-block 

crosswalks; and, at intersections of a high-volume arterial and very low-volume 

collector, traffic signals for which the arterial signal is “dark” unless a pedestrian 

presses a button to trigger the traffic signal to change to red on the arterial and allow 

the pedestrian to cross. Other countermeasures have fundamentally changed traffic 

patterns in an effort to improve pedestrian safety. These include installing pedestrian 

refuge islands, speed humps, and narrowing the roadway to encourage drivers to 

reduce their speed. 

As one interviewee commented, some of these advances in pedestrian safety might 

have happened without the Program presence, but they definitely would have taken 

longer. “The Program channeled everyone’s interest and helped them to clearly focus 

on what could be done.” 

Program Delivery

There was no single model used by all the locations for delivering courses. 

Each focus location implemented courses slightly differently, depending on its 

individual needs and circumstances: 

• Inviting course attendees 

o New York chose to limit attendees to public sector employees. This 

was to strengthen pedestrian safety knowledge in the organizations 
13

that plan, construct, and operate transportation facilities. The 

majority of the courses were held at the Lower Manhattan office of 

the New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the 

city’s MPO. Invitations were initially sent to transportation agencies 

in the New York metropolitan area, including Westchester, Nassau, 

and Suffolk Counties. Because of the overwhelming demand for 

courses, the course coordinator extended invitations to participants 

from upstate New York and in Orange and Albany Counties. In 

addition, New York offered a web-based version of the course to 

expand the opportunity to participate.

o Chicago chose to invite people from different occupations, levels of 

government, and type of affiliation (such as public sector 

transportation agency, consulting firm, or advocacy group). 

Invitations were sent out using a large email list maintained by CMAP. 

Course attendees were chosen on a first–come, first-served basis.

o California notified managers from county and city departments of 

transportation or public works and let them choose the most 

appropriate attendees from their organization. Staff from advocacy 

organizations were also invited. 

o GDOT, which offered the “Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action 

Plan” course first, invited people from a variety of professions using 

a contact list of professionals involved in pedestrian safety. 

Attendees were chosen on a first-come, first-served basis. For the 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety course, the Atlanta Regional Council 

(ARC) worked with GDOT to target individuals who they thought 

would have the biggest impact on pedestrian safety: GDOT design 

engineers, local government representatives, consultants, and school 

district officials 

o Prior to being designated a focus state, Michigan’s Governor’s Traffic 

Safety Advisory Commission (GTSAC) had already begun the process 

of developing a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan as part of 

the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The GTSAC created a 

network of professionals that MDOT was able to take advantage of 

when promoting the courses. GTSAC membership included a diverse 

set of professionals from local governments, health organizations, 

MPOs, consulting firms, and the Michigan State Police. 

• The order and selection of courses

o Georgia chose to offer the PSAP course first. The state was in the 

process of developing a strategic highway safety plan that included a 

pedestrian focus area. GDOT felt that the PSAP course would be 

helpful in developing the pedestrian component of the strategic 

highway safety plan.
14

o Michigan chose to offer the design course first. After assessing the 

status of pedestrian safety initiatives in the state, MDOT felt that 

practical pedestrian safety countermeasures would be more useful 

given that many locations were in the process of planning or 

implementing pedestrian safety improvements. 

o Chicago chose to delay offering any of the courses for a year while it 

completed their pedestrian safety data analysis. They wanted to be 

sure that they knew the nature of the region’s pedestrian safety 

problems before delving into solutions.

o California focused on the PSAP course since Caltrans had begun a 

major initiative to help county and city governments to develop 

PSAPS. 

o New York focused on the design course in response to local needs. 

• Whether they took advantage of the technical assistance component of the 

Program.

Only Georgia and Chicago requested technical assistance from the 

Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. Georgia received 

assistance in developing a state PSAP; Chicago received assistance for its 

data analysis. California received technical assistance but not through 

the Program. Caltrans has been working closely with staff from the 

FHWA Resource Center to develop a template for PSAPs that county and 

city governments can use when developing their own PSAPs. They are 

also working collaboratively to develop a short on-line version of the 

courses. Neither Michigan nor New York requested technical assistance. 

The courses were the predominant and most successful Program component. 

Interviewees were overwhelmingly positive about the courses. Some of the many 

reasons interviewees found the courses valuable and relevant to their jobs were that 

they: 

• Raised awareness of pedestrian safety problems in their area; 

• Generated enthusiasm for improving pedestrian safety; 

• Expanded their knowledge of countermeasures; 

• Provided a forum for a cross-section of professionals to share ideas and 

concerns; and 

• Provided practical instruction on pedestrian safety design and planning 

techniques. 
15

The demand for training far exceeded the supply. 

Interviewees’ most frequent comment was that the demand for the courses was far 

greater than the number of participants they could accommodate. As one interviewee 

stated, “My only recommendation for improvement is to offer more courses.” 

Some locations, most notably California, found creative solutions for meeting the 

unmet demand for training. 

Some of the focus locations instituted follow-up training initiatives to expand the 

Program’s reach: 

• To meet the demand for more pedestrian safety courses, Chicago, New York 

City, and California arranged to have staff from the FHWA Resource Center 

deliver the courses after the courses offered by the Focused Approach to 

Pedestrian Safety courses were complete. 

• In California, local governments have used the course materials to conduct 

their own training. This has allowed them to deliver low-cost, high-quality 

training aimed at meeting local needs. 

• To expand the reach of the courses, Caltrans is working with the FHWA 

Resource Center to develop a streamlined on-line version of the courses so that 

trainees can take the course on demand without leaving their offices. 

• To lessen the training burden on local governments, California Walks, a 

statewide pedestrian advocacy group, has used the material from the two-day 

“Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” course to develop an abbreviated 

one-day course offered to local governments. 

• In Michigan, the FHWA Division Office makes presentations on the proper design 

for ADA ramp installations and incorporates material from the Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety course, addressing ADA design and safety at the 

same time. 

Management support helped raise the priority of pedestrian safety. 

Several interviewees said that upper management support was important because it 

demonstrated the importance of pedestrian safety. In MDOT districts, the courses 

were introduced by senior management. This promoted buy-in from attendees by 

showing that MDOT takes pedestrian safety very seriously. In other locations, 

interviewees said that the lack of obvious support from senior managers made them 

feel that pedestrian safety was not near the top of their agencies’ priorities. 
16

Participants said that the conference calls and web conferences were valuable 

because they offered the opportunity to learn from peers addressing similar 

problems.

Interviewees who participated in the conference calls and web conferences were very 

pleased with them. They appreciated the opportunity to share ideas with colleagues 

from around the country. They also liked that these events focus on state and local 

issues. They reported that the calls provided them with useful information on best 

practices and gave them access to presentations created by conference call attendees 

that they could use in their own areas. However, every interviewee who had 

participated in conference calls and web conferences said that these events tended to 

be overshadowed by more pressing needs. Very few interviewees reported 

participating in more than a few calls. Several interviewees said that they have not 

participated consistently because they did not receive information about the date of 

the telephone and web conferences and the topics to be covered. 

Although only two of the five locations studied—Chicago and Georgia—took 

advantage of FHWA’s offer of technical assistance, they both found it very 

valuable. 

Chicago and Georgia both reported that they benefited significantly from the 

technical assistance they received. Before moving forward with any pedestrian safety 

initiatives, including the pedestrian safety courses, Chicago wanted to conduct a 

thorough analysis of pedestrian safety data to understand the nature of the 

pedestrian safety problems. This data analysis was complicated because, while 

Chicago had been collecting safety data from several different sources, it had not 

compiled or analyzed pedestrian data. Chicago took advantage of FHWA technical 

assistance for help with this task. The data analysis was an important catalyst for 

prioritizing pedestrian safety initiatives undertaken in the Chicago area. 

The state of Georgia requested technical assistance to help develop its statewide 

PSAP. Interviewees were very pleased with the technical expertise of the consultants 

hired by FHWA and felt that they helped Georgia create a comprehensive and 

practical Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Some interviewees felt that the state PSAP 

probably would not have been completed without this technical assistance. 

IV. Recommendations 

Based on the five locations studied, the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

Program appears to be very effective. Interviewees did, however, offer many 

suggestions for strengthening the Program. This section summarizes themes from the 

interviews and observations of the Volpe Center study team. 
17

There are three categories of recommendations: Program content and delivery; 

outreach and education; and Program evaluation. 

Program Content and Delivery

Expand the training capacity to offer more learning opportunities that can be 

delivered at regular intervals. 

In each of the locations studied, interest in the courses exceeded available slots. 

Additionally, many interviewees said that they would like courses offered on a regular 

basis. This could be done by: 

• Working with staff from the FHWA Resource Center to continue to deliver the 

courses after all the courses sponsored by the Focused Approach to Pedestrian 

Safety Program have been delivered. California, New York, and Chicago used 

this approach to continue to meet course demand. 

• Developing local capacity to deliver training. Program activities could be 

sustained over the long term by developing local capacity for teaching the 

material. By sponsoring “train the trainer” initiatives, FHWA could prepare 

locally based instructors to teach elements of the course. An additional 

advantage is that locally based instructors can customize course material to 

meet the specific needs of their location. 

Expand course content to include information on meeting ADA requirements. 

Many interviewees noted the overlap between countermeasures for pedestrian safety 

problems and measures necessary for compliance with the American with Disabilities 

Act (ADA). Given this natural connection, offering ADA and pedestrian safety training 

in a single course would eliminate redundancy between the two curricula. It would 

also ensure that material presented in ADA training is consistent with that of 

pedestrian safety training. Finally, teaching both topics in the same course would 

decrease the training-related burden on agencies and their staff since participants 

would not have to attend two separate courses. 

Tailor course content to the specific needs of each location. 

While participants were very pleased with the course content, there was some 

sentiment that the courses could be improved by tailoring the content to the specific 

circumstances of each location. For example, a public works director from a rural 

county in Northern California suggested that courses delivered in rural areas could 

include content on pedestrian safety on rural roads, replacing the content on 

pedestrian safety on multi-lane, high-speed roads in urban areas. 

Interviewees consistently reported that one of the most relevant parts of the courses 

was the field audit, which used a “real life project with real problems to be solved.” 
18

Include content on how to incorporate pedestrian safety considerations into the 

standard project development process. 

One of the most common problems that interviewees cited is that pedestrian safety 

considerations are not a standard part of the project development process. They are 

often treated as an ancillary task to be addressed outside the normal project 

development process. This has two negative consequences. First, consideration of 

pedestrian safety measures often occurs well into the project development process. 

At this stage, modifying the project to incorporate pedestrian safety countermeasures 

might not be possible because the project is very close to completion. Second, 

occasionally pedestrian safety issues are not considered at all because the pedestrian 

safety review is left out of the project development process entirely due to oversight 

on the part of the project developers. To avoid these two problems, pedestrian safety 

must be considered along with all other project requirements such as pavement 

design and drainage. 

Coordinate course content with other FHWA training initiatives. 

Interviewees stated that they would like to see the courses integrated with other 

FHWA training. Some interviewees commented that they have participated in other 

FHWA learning opportunities that contained information that conflicts with some of 

the content in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety courses. The Program 

should work with other FHWA offices to ensure that pedestrian safety content is 

consistent; to avoid redundancy; and to take advantage of economies of scale. 

Explore mechanisms other than classroom training. 

While classroom training has many advantages, it can be costly to deliver and 

inconvenient for attendees. In addition, many interviewees cited difficulty in getting 

busy people to take time off from their jobs for training, particularly for the longer 

courses. To reach a wider audience, including those outside the focus locations, FHWA 

should explore other mechanisms for learning, including: 

• Developing web-based learning opportunities. This could be a stand-alone 

web-based course that participants can take at any time, as with the webbased training that Caltrans and the FHWA Resource Center are currently 

developing. Web-based training could also be delivered as a webinar—

instructor-led courses that use interactive Internet capabilities and a 

teleconference call to allow students to communicate with instructors in real 

time. 

• Promoting peer learning. Interviewees consistently said that courses, 

conference calls, and web conferences were a good opportunity to talk with 

colleagues facing similar problems and to learn from each others’ experiences. 

Interviewees also stated that peer reviews of PSAP would be helpful. 
19

• Creating and distributing educational materials. Some elements of the 

Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety course curricula could be provided 

through educational materials such as “best practices” reports or a handbook 

describing typical pedestrian safety problems and appropriate 

countermeasures. 

Improve outreach to notify stakeholders of dates and topics of upcoming 

conference calls and web conferences. 

Some interviewees said that they have participated in some conference calls and web 

conference and found them valuable. However, a few reported that they have not 

participated consistently, in part because they were not notified of the schedule and 

topics for these events. 

None of the locations studied had a consistent and reliable way of announcing the 

dates and topics of teleconference calls and web conferences. Word is generally 

spread informally, relying on stakeholders to be in the right place at the right time to 

learn about upcoming events. The Program could provide information and outreach 

material on the conference calls and web conferences to FHWA Division Offices for 

distribution to people in the state who might benefit from participation. 

Promote the technical assistance component of the Program. 

The locations that received technical assistance found it extremely valuable. 

However, technical assistance was a very under-utilized component of the Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. Of the14 states and four cities designated as 

focus locations, only two states and one city took advantage of the technical 

assistance component. A few interviewees were not aware that this service was 

available. The Office of Safety should work with FHWA division offices to convey to 

focus locations the type and extent of technical assistance available. 

Require focus locations to develop an “action plan” with goals and performance 

measures as a perquisite for participation in the Program. 

To ensure that the focus locations are committed to the Program and that they have a 

workable plan for its implementation, FHWA could require each location to submit an 

action plan stating their goals, strategies, implementation details, and performance 

measures . For example, this plan could include a qualitative and quantitative 

description of the region’s pedestrian safety problems and how the Focused Approach 

to Pedestrian Safety Program will help address them. The action plan could also 

include the region’s approach to follow up with participants to determine changes 

that have been made that were influenced by the Program. This would provide data 

to the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program to use in evaluating the entire 

Program. 
20

Consider modifying the methodology for determining “focus locations” to reflect 

a combination of need and interest. 

As currently designed, all locations that met a given threshold for pedestrian fatalities 

received Program resources, regardless of the location’s transportation priorities. 

Targeting locations could be improved by offering Program resources to all locations 

that meet a given threshold for pedestrian safety rates. However, each location would 

have to request pedestrian safety training opportunities as evidence that the location 

is committed and ready to make the changes necessary to improve pedestrian safety. 

Outreach and Education

Develop outreach material specifically aimed at senior managers and policymakers to encourage them to promote pedestrian safety improvements. 

Several interviewees said that support from leaders and policy-makers gave the topic 

of pedestrian safety generally, and the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

Program specifically, a gravitas that generated interest and enthusiasm. Conversely, a 

few interviewees said that the apparent lack of interest in pedestrian safety displayed 

by senior managers and policy makers caused them to question the importance of 

pedestrian safety to their organization. The Program could create outreach material 

and/or develop a webinar specifically intended to impress upon leaders and policymakers the importance of improving pedestrian safety. Information could include 

statistics about pedestrian safety, a description of the many modest improvements 

that can make pedestrian travel safer, and examples of pedestrian safety measures 

and programs that have been implemented across the nation. 

Interviewees also recommended that FHWA emphasize to state and local DOTs the 

importance of having staff at all levels of the organization attend the training and of 

the particular value of having upper management introduce the training to 

demonstrate the agency’s commitment to pedestrian safety. 

Develop and promulgate case studies of “best practices” in pedestrian safety. 

In each location studied, Program activities influenced changes and new initiatives 

that improve pedestrian safety. Several interviewees suggested that it would be 

helpful to have information on possible pedestrian safety countermeasures that would 

be suitable for their location. This might include a booklet presenting options, their 

advantages and disadvantages, and descriptions of initiatives undertaken in locations 

across the country. A list of resources for learning more about these options could 

also be provided. 
21

Develop and disseminate tools to help agencies analyze pedestrian safety and 

identify appropriate solutions. 

Some of the focus locations in the study developed useful tools that could be helpful 

to other locations. For example, California developed PSAP templates to assist local 

governments in developing their own PSAPs. Additionally, Caltrans and the FHWA 

Resource Center staff are creating an on-line course in developing a PSAP. As part of 

the best practices research, FHWA should collect information on existing tools and 

help make them widely available to communities seeking to improve pedestrian 

safety. 

Program Evaluation

Require focus locations to document the results of the Program activities 

delivered and the lessons learned. 

As a prerequisite for participating in the Program, FHWA should require focus 

locations to document their experiences and results. In addition, focus locations 

should be required to write periodic follow-up reports describing pedestrian safety 

countermeasures and initiatives undertaken as a result of their Program activities. 

This requirement should also include a description of lessons learned in implementing 

these countermeasures and initiatives. FHWA could provide a template to this data 

collection and ensure data consistency. 

The FHWA could use these reports to continuously monitor and improve the Program. 

FHWA could also use “success stories” based on these reports to market and promote 

the Program. In addition, this requirement would promote transparency and 

accountability among Program participants and course instructors. 

Track Program results over time to determine whether there is a reduction in 

pedestrian incidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

Given the many factors that contribute to pedestrian injuries and fatalities, it is 

difficult to isolate the specific impacts of Program activities. However, FHWA should 

monitor trends in the focus locations to determine whether there are, in fact, 

improvements in pedestrian safety and, if not, explore the factors that might 

contribute to the lack of progress. 

Conduct further research to determine critical factors in Program success. 

One of the purposes of this evaluation was to investigate trends and patterns in 

Program outcomes in order to gain a better understanding of critical success factors. 

While this study has created a foundation for future research, its scale was too small 

to make any conclusive statements on factors influencing Program success. Future 

studies could examine: 
22

• Leadership: What are the key functions of the Program leader? Are there 

differences between those Programs led by state DOTs and those led by MP0s? 

• Management support: How important is upper management support in 

achieving Program success? What strategies have proven successful in 

attracting the support of upper management? 

• Readiness for change: Are there certain prerequisites for Program success? For 

example, are there institutional mechanisms that need to be in place to 

implement pedestrian improvements? 

• Program delivery: What elements of Program delivery were the most 

important in ensuring success? 

o Order of course delivery: Is the order of course delivery important? If 

locations do not have a PSAP, is it important that they start with this 

course so they understand the issues before developing the solutions?

o Number and mix of course attendees: What is the best mix of course 

attendees? Is there a critical mass of people from each agency that 

needs to be trained in order for the training to have an impact on 

agencies’ approach to pedestrian safety? What level(s) of management 

should to be involved in Program activities? What are the advantages and 

disadvantages of broadening participation to include non-transportation 

agencies? 

o Course content: Does the course content meet the needs of each of the 

focus locations? How could course content be modified to meet the 

disparate needs of focus locations?

o Obstacles to success: What were the most important obstacles to 

success? What strategies have been most successful in addressing these 

barriers? 

Conduct additional research on pedestrian safety. 

Further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of various pedestrian 

safety countermeasures; e.g., which countermeasures work best in rural versus urban 

locations; which countermeasures are most effective in addressing specific pedestrian 

issues such as eliminating jaywalking or reducing traffic speed in locations with high 

pedestrian volumes. Interviewees also requested research on cost-effective methods 

for collecting data on the length and quantity of non-motorized trips and the 

incorporation of these data into existing travel demand models. 
23

V. Conclusion 

One interviewee commented, “I hope the conclusion of the evaluation is ‘money well 

spent.’” The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program was received very 

favorably in the locations studied. The Program raised the visibility of pedestrian 

safety, and helped focus attention and resources on pedestrian safety initiatives. The 

increased awareness and understanding of pedestrian issues spurred changes in 

policies and business processes aimed at improving pedestrian safety. It also helped 

create and strengthen partnerships and institutional structures focused on pedestrian 

safety. In every location studied, the investments in the Program have already 

resulted in the planning and implementation of pedestrian countermeasures. 

Further research is needed to determine the critical factors that influence the 

adoption of pedestrian improvements. There is also a need to continue to monitor 

Program results to determine whether the improvements are sustained over time and 

whether they result in a reduction in pedestrian incidents, injuries, and fatalities. 

In the short term, FHWA should take advantage of the successes of the Program by 

developing and disseminating additional educational and outreach materials on best 

practices for addressing pedestrian safety. In this way, FHWA can extend the impact 

of the Program beyond the focus locations and increase even further the awareness, 

visibility, and understanding of pedestrian safety issues. 
24

Appendix A. Case Studies 

New York

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

In 2007, there were 278 pedestrian fatalities in New York state—the fourth highest in 

the nation. New York City, with more pedestrian fatalities than any other city, was 

selected as a focus city. New York’s FHWA Division office worked with the New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC) to coordinate Program activities. Under 

the coordination of NYMTC, 12 courses have been delivered in locations throughout 

the NYMTC region and beyond including New York, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and 

Orange counties. Attendees included transportation engineers, law enforcement 

personnel, transportation planners, and public officials from a variety of state and 

local government agencies. More than 280 people have received training through this 

Program. NYMTC continues to promote the courses to local municipalities within and 

beyond the New York City region. 

Table A1. Pedestrian Safety Activities in New York 

Fiscal Year Activity 2006 2007 Total

Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (1-day) 1 0 1 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (2-day) 6 4 10 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (1-day) 1 0 1 

Course Webcast 0 1 1 

Total 8 5 13 

REACTION

Testimony from course participants has been overwhelmingly positive. All evidence 

has pointed toward ongoing and excess demand for the Program course throughout 

the downstate New York region. Many course participants cited interest in attending 

additional courses on pedestrian safety topics or in providing additional opportunities 

for colleagues to attend the courses. Course participants felt that the courses: 

• Were timely – occurring immediately before a new NYC DOT Commissioner 

increased the agency’s focus on pedestrian issues; 

• Were practical and useful; 

• Introduced new techniques for assessing pedestrian safety problems and 

strategies to address them; 
25

• Were well-presented by interesting and qualified trainers; and 

• Used visual materials and field examples well. 

OUTCOMES

Program activities improved participants’ understanding of pedestrian safety 

issues 

The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety courses increased awareness of the 

importance of pedestrian safety among transportation professionals and agencies 

throughout the downstate region. This was especially true for engineers who attended 

the “Designing for Pedestrian Safety” course. For course participants who were 

already familiar with pedestrian safety issues and countermeasures, the courses 

reinvigorated their interest in implementing safety measures. 

Program activities raised awareness of pedestrian safety issues. 

The large number of courses in the downstate region likely increased their impact. 

Respondents suggested that repeated courses in New York City may have helped to 

create a critical mass of city employees across several disciplines—planning, 

operations, law enforcement, design, and construction—that were interested in 

pedestrian safety. This contributed to a shift in priorities towards greater concern for 

pedestrian issues. In addition, the courses may have had a positive multiplier effect, 

as they energized a number of course participants to raise awareness of pedestrian 

safety issues and countermeasures in their communities. 

Program activities spurred various pedestrian safety projects and initiatives. 

The courses provided transportation professionals from diverse disciplines with 

strategies to incorporate pedestrian safety in their work. Numerous participants have 

shared stories of their efforts to follow up on the course teachings with course 

trainers and coordinators and sought additional advice and training opportunities. 

Several design engineers from New York City and other towns have worked to 

incorporate pedestrian design considerations into numerous construction projects. 

Participants cited several specific examples of countermeasures and initiatives 

influenced by the courses, such as: 

• Conducting pilot studies of countdown timers, developing a Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan, and establishing a “Safe Streets for Seniors” Program in New York 

City; 

• Expanding sidewalks and redesigning crossings in Manhattan; 

• Developing a law enforcement pedestrian safety plan in New Castle; 

• Implementing a comprehensive traffic calming project in Farmingdale; 
26

• Modifying signal timing and identifying potential bike lane routes in White 

Plains; 

• Installing and designing sidewalks in Rockland County; 

• Adding mid-block crossings in Riverhead; 

• Using reflective pedestrian safety signage at crossings in Great Neck Plaza; 

and, 

• Developing pedestrian safety plans in several municipalities. 

The examples listed above demonstrate the variety of approaches and applications of 

pedestrian safety initiatives undertaken by course participants. In the case of New 

Castle, for example, law enforcement personnel worked to create a law enforcement 

pedestrian safety plan. In Manhattan, traffic planners from the New York City 

Department of Transportation’s Division of Traffic Planning and engineers from the 

New York City Department of Design and Construction cited numerous examples of 

their agencies’ new approach to pedestrian safety. In the case of the former, 

engineers who participated in the training left with a new awareness and sense of 

responsibility for pedestrian safety. In the case of the latter, traffic planners have 

elevated the importance of pedestrian safety issues so that they no longer “take a 

back seat” to vehicular flow. Both Departments are now aggressively addressing 

pedestrian issues by widening sidewalks, creating pedestrian refuge islands, and 

shutting down traffic lanes. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

Offer more courses and offer courses in locations beyond the downstate region. 

Demand for the courses has far exceeded the available training capacity. Offering 

more courses and offering them more frequently would be important steps in 

promoting pedestrian safety within each agency that has expressed interest in the 

courses. Many participants expressed interest in hosting courses in their own localities 

or having colleagues attend the courses. 

Allocate Program resources based on the severity of the pedestrian safety 

problem in each focus location. 

Some interviewees felt that FHWA funding for courses should be commensurate with 

need and suggested that FHWA should provide greater support to areas with more 

pedestrians, such as New York. As seen in several New York City agencies, the 

multiple course offerings in Manhattan enabled certain agencies to achieve a critical 

mass of trained personnel that helped to change the approach to pedestrian issues 

across the agency. 
27

Continue to use course instructors with both engineering and non-engineering 

backgrounds. 

Several interviewees suggested that the success of the course was largely the result of 

the two excellent trainers from the FHWA Resource Center. The use of trainers from 

different backgrounds, Federal and state, engineer, and “advocate,” likely 

contributed to the appeal of the course to participants from different professions. 

Customize course materials to address the specific challenges course 

participants face in their localities. 

Several course participants stated that course content would be more effective if it 

were customized to address specific local issues. For example, several interviewees 

commented that material in the course dealing with multi-lane expressways or rural 

safety was not relevant to New York City. The aspect of the course most often singled 

out as useful or inspiring was the field exercise where participants diagnosed 

problems and developed recommendations to address location-specific issues. 
28

GEORGIA

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

In 2006, Georgia had 148 pedestrian fatalities, ninth highest in the nation. Georgia’s 

FHWA Division office worked with GDOT to plan and implement Program activities. 

Since bicycle and pedestrian safety was selected as one of the emphasis areas for the 

state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan, GDOT requested technical assistance technical 

assistance in developing its State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan to be included in the 

Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 

GDOT offered the “Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” course before the 

other courses because they wanted to promote safety planning. In subsequent course 

offerings, GDOT targeted their invitations to people who they thought would have the 

most significant impact on pedestrian safety. Working with MPOs, GDOT continues to 

promote the courses around the state. 

Table A2. Pedestrian Safety Activities in Georgia 

Fiscal Year 

Activity 2006 2007 Total

Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2-day) 1 0 1 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (2-day) 0 2 2 

Technical Assistance 1 0 1 

Total 2 2 4 

REACTION

Interviewees reported that course participants were very pleased with the training. 

They felt that the courses: 

• Raised awareness about pedestrian safety; 

• Introduced attendees to techniques for assessing pedestrian safety problems 

and developing strategies to address them; and 

• Were relevant to their jobs. 
29

Participants spoke favorably about the periodic conference calls and web 

conferences, saying that the events: 

• Provided useful information on current pedestrian safety initiatives in cities 

and states around the country; 

• Helped them learn from other locations regarding best practices in the process 

for developing the PSAP; 

• Provided access to presentations that have useful information to share; and 

• Allowed participants to share ideas and learn from each other. 

GDOT was pleased with the technical assistance provided through the Focused 

Approach Program. The consultant helped them make recommendations for improving 

pedestrian safety through changes in state policies. 

OUTCOMES

Program activities improved awareness of pedestrian safety issues 

Program activities increased awareness of pedestrian safety problems among 

transportation professionals and agencies. This was especially true for engineers who 

attended the “Designing for Pedestrian Safety” course. 

The pedestrian safety audit done on a location that GDOT had flagged for 

improvements provided GDOT with information and ideas on pedestrian safety 

problems and countermeasures for that location 

The courses included an exercise in which students analyzed a real-world location 

with pedestrian safety problems and recommended improvements. By choosing a 

location where GDOT plans to enhance walkability and pedestrian safety, course 

attendees provided GDOT with a practical list of possible design elements that could 

increase pedestrian safety in the chosen area. GDOT is currently working with a 

consultant on a safety improvement project at this location. This project will include 

some of the proposals generated by feedback obtained in the course. 

The consultant working on the project noted, “GDOT has always been open to new 

ideas on pedestrian safety but he noted a real shift with the [Ponce] project. The 

scope of work was more specific and more complete—not the typical generic version.” 

He felt that “there had been some impact as a result of the Focused Approach to 

Pedestrian Safety workshops.” He said that GDOT engineers were “looking at more 

options—traffic calming types of solutions such as reducing the number of through 

lanes.” He also indicated that these approaches are unusual for GDOT to consider 

because the proposals might increase traffic delay. However, “the impact is not so 

significant for vehicles and the proposed improvements for pedestrian safety were 

more important.” 
30

Developing the Pedestrian Safety Action Plan prior to offering the design course 

was important to provide a comprehensive approach to pedestrian safety rather 

than “jumping to solutions.” 

GDOT felt that beginning the training with the PSAP course was instrumental in 

helping attendees understand the issues before identifying the solutions. 

The technical assistance in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program 

helped to identify priority issues for Georgia’s Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. 

Engaging the Atlanta Regional Commission in this process was beneficial in 

bringing municipal partners to the table in the development of the plan.

A number of the recommendations in the PSAP were based on the knowledge gained 

from the technical assistance in the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. 

These recommendations include: 

• Integrating pedestrian considerations in project development 

• New policies on pedestrian signals (countdown timers, leading pedestrian 

intervals) 

• Updates to the driver’s manual to include pedestrian safety issues 

• A plan to identify education programs for pedestrian safety 

• Promotion of pedestrian safety with messages on buses 

• Increased speed enforcement in high-volume pedestrian areas 

These recommendations/policy changes are important to provide tools for promoting 

pedestrian safety. Municipalities are encouraged to implement them (although GDOT 

cannot compel them to). Including the municipalities in the PSAP development 

process was important to achieve buy-in from local governments. 

The Atlanta Regional Commission considered recommendations from the training 

when writing the Atlanta Region Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian 

Walkways Plan (September 2007). 

Because of the training, ARC identified a number of recommended practices for the 

Atlanta Region Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways Plan: targeting 

investments to high-crash corridors, implementing “complete streets” practices in 

projects, and adding or improving crossings at un-signalized intersections and midblock locations. In addition, ARC plans to update the Transportation Improvement 

Program blueprint to include pedestrian and bike projects using a formula for project 

prioritization which that was developed for the out of the 2007 bicycle and pedestrian 

safety plan. 

Program activities have contributed to changes in how local governments address 

pedestrian safety 

After participating in the courses, several local governments in the Atlanta area have 

contacted the ARC bicycle/pedestrian coordinator for advice and other resources on 
31

pedestrian safety design. They have also turned to ARC for advice and feedback on 

their local PSAP. 

SUGGESTION FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS

Increase the number and frequency of courses 

Demand for the courses far exceeded the available training capacity. GDOT has had to 

turn away many people who wanted to participate once the courses were full. 

Offering more courses and offering them more frequently would expand the reach of 

the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety to include everyone who wants to 

participate. 

Include content on incorporating pedestrian safety considerations as a standard 

part of the project development process. 

One of the most common problems cited by interviewees was that pedestrian safety is 

frequently addressed as an afterthought, a task that is outside the normal project 

development process. The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety courses could 

emphasize the importance of including pedestrian safety elements in the normal 

project development process and perhaps provide suggestions for process changes to 

address this problem. 

Include components for bike safety and ADA compliance 

It is sometimes difficult for transportation agencies to broaden their congestionoriented planning and operations to consider non-motorized transportation and ADA 

compliance. Under such conditions, sending staff to a single pedestrian-related 

training event is difficult. It would be doubly difficult to, later on, send staff to ADA 

training and then to training on bicycle safety. Offering a single course covering these 

three topics would decrease the burden on attendees and their agencies. 

Improve outreach to senior managers so that they understand the importance of 

supporting pedestrian safety initiatives and communicate this to employees 

directly involved in planning and designing transportation projects. 

One interviewee stated that it would be beneficial to have “more direct 

communication between upper levels of organizations so that information about these 

types of initiatives spread to those who are working with these issues every day.” She 

also felt that “high-level managers in the various transportation-related organizations 

have not spread the word to people who actually do the work about being a focus 

state and what that means.” 
32

Improve outreach to notify stakeholders of upcoming conference calls and web 

conferences. 

Currently, notification about impending conference calls and web conferences is done 

informally. This haphazard method is not always sufficient to notify all interested 

stakeholders. Implementing a formal procedure for announcing upcoming events 

would help address this problem. 
33

CHICAGO

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

With 48 pedestrian fatalities in 2007, Chicago has more pedestrian fatalities than all 

but two other cities—Los Angeles and New York City. With the support of FHWA’s 

Illinois Division Office, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) 

coordinated the delivery of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety activities. 

These included four courses in 2006 and 2007 and occasional participation in the 

Program’s periodic teleconferences calls and web conferences. CMAP also received 

technical assistance in the analysis of pedestrian safety data from the Chicago 

metropolitan area. 

Table A3. Pedestrian Safety Activities in the Chicago Metropolitan Area 

Fiscal Year Activity 2006 2007 Total

Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2-day) 1 0 1 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (2-day) 1 0 1 

Planning and Designing for Pedestrian Safety (3-day) 0 2 2 

Technical Assistance x NA 

Total 2 2 4 

REACTION

CMAP and the FHWA Division Office staff were taken aback upon learning that the City 

of Chicago had more pedestrian fatalities than almost every other city in the United 

States. When FHWA notified CMAP about the extent of Chicago’s pedestrian safety 

problems, CMAP was in the process of developing a bicycle and pedestrian plan. CMAP 

put the plan on hold until it conducted a thorough analysis of pedestrian safety data 

to understand the nature of the pedestrian safety problems in the metropolitan area. 

CMAP also decided to delay offering the pedestrian safety courses until after the data 

analysis so that the courses could address the most common pedestrian safety 

problems in the Chicago area. 

While CMAP regularly compiled transportation safety information—including 

pedestrian safety—it had never specifically analyzed data on pedestrian safety. CMAP 

and the City of Chicago requested technical assistance offered by the Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety to conduct a thorough data analysis with the assistance 

of the PBIC. 
34

Every interviewee was pleased with the Program’s pedestrian safety courses. They 

felt that the courses: 

• Raised their awareness of pedestrian safety problems in the Chicago area; 

• Generated enthusiasm for improving pedestrian safety; 

• Expanded their knowledge of countermeasures to address problem locations; 

• Provided a forum for a cross-section of professionals to share ideas and 

concerns; and, 

• Included practical pedestrian safety design and planning techniques; 

Only one interviewee had participated in the periodic teleconferences and web 

conferences. He thought that they provide the opportunity to discuss pedestriansafety-related problems and solutions with peers in other regions parts of the country. 

OUTCOMES

Program activities emphasized the importance of pedestrian safety among 

transportation professionals and agencies. 

FHWA’s involvement in the Program, combined with out-of-state course instructors, 

has given the topic a gravitas and credibility that was absent from locally produced 

awareness and training initiatives. 

Program activities spurred various pedestrian-related initiatives in the Chicago 

area. 

• The City of Chicago pedestrian safety staff is working with the city’s police 

department to improve the consistency and comprehensiveness of data 

collected at crash scenes. 

• Using the results of the data analysis performed with technical assistance from 

PBIC, the City of Chicago is currently developing a pedestrian plan that will 

outline a strategy for planning and developing pedestrian improvements 

throughout the city. 

• The Mayor of Chicago formed the Pedestrian Advisory Committee to improve 

pedestrian safety and promote policies and practices to enhance the overall 

pedestrian environment. 

• CMAP used course content on pedestrian safety countermeasures in developing 

projects and recommendations for improving pedestrian safety. These were 

eventually included in CMAP’s 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 

• Using the toolkit from the courses, a CMAP contractor worked with several 

suburbs to assess roadway geometries that negatively influenced pedestrian 

safety. This effort generated several projects using countermeasures such as 

curb bulbouts, median islands, and traffic operations changes. These projects 

were submitted to IDOT for Highway Safety Program funding. IDOT ultimately 

chose not to fund these projects. 
35

• CMAP used the information from the workshops to develop pedestrian-safetyrelated projects and recommendations that were incorporated into CMAP’s 

2030 Regional Transportation Plan. 

• CMAP has hired a consultant to help develop a detailed, data-driven Pedestrian 

Safety Action Plan. The first phase of this task was to conduct a study of 

existing pedestrian safety conditions. The draft of the report from this study is 

currently being reviewed. Phase II of this task will use the information from the 

“existing conditions” report to write a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. 

• CMAP has suggested changes to the pedestrian safety procedures in IDOT’s 

Bureau of Design and Environment Procedures Manual. IDOT is currently 

evaluating these policy changes. 

• Influenced by the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety courses, several 

suburbs have begun using pedestrian safety countermeasures such as: 

o Bulb-outs 

o Pedestrian countdown signals; one suburb has installed these at all 

signalized intersections 

o Leading pedestrian intervals 

Participants in Program activities have developed an informal “community of 

practice” that helps them learn from each other 

Each of the course offerings had a diverse set of attendees—engineers, planners, 

managers, advocates, consultants—working in different pedestrian-related fields—

public works departments, city and state departments of transportation, consulting 

firms, public safety agencies, transit providers, and others. This is a mix of people 

who probably would not have come together were it not for the courses. Attendees 

have taken advantage of this opportunity to expand their network of colleagues and 

create a diverse “community of practice.” 

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

Increase the number and frequency of courses 

After delivering all the courses provided by the Program, there was still substantial 

need and demand for more training. Staff from the FHWA Resource Center stepped in 

and delivered additional courses using the curriculum designed for the Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program. 

Create a “train-the-trainer” initiative that would sustain local delivery of the 

courses over time. 

Interviewees agreed that there was a need and interest in delivering more courses. 

Some interviewees felt that the courses should be delivered regularly—perhaps once a 

year—to update those who have already taken the courses and as an opportunity to 

train new employees. By training local people to deliver the courses, CMAP and others 

would be able make decisions on offering the courses independently of FHWA.
36

Lessons Learned:

• Conduct data analysis to understand the region’s pedestrian safety problems 

before moving forward with the training. 

• Analyze pedestrian safety data as a regular part of safety data analysis. 

 
37

CALIFORNIA

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

FHWA selected California as a focus state because of its high number of pedestrian 

fatalities—709 in 2006, more than any other state in the country. With the support of 

FHWA’s California Division Office and FHWA’s Resource Center, Caltrans led a 

comprehensive effort to deliver pedestrian safety training statewide. Under the 

coordination of the Caltrans Division of Transportation Planning Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Program, 13 pedestrian safety courses were offered throughout the state 

in fiscal years 2006-2007. In addition, several Californians augmented their training by 

participating in periodic teleconferences and web conferences sponsored by the 

FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety Program. 

Table A4. Pedestrian Safety Courses in California 

Fiscal Year Activity 2006 2007 Total

Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2-day) 3 1 4 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (2-day) 0 5 5 

Planning and Designing for Pedestrian Safety (3-day) 1 3 4 

Total 4 9 13 

REACTION

Interviewees reported that course participants were very pleased with the courses. 

Participants felt that the courses: 

• Were relevant to their jobs; 

• Expanded their knowledge of pedestrian safety issues; 

• Included practical pedestrian safety design and planning techniques; and 

• Provided a useful forum for a cross section of professionals to share ideas and 

concerns. 

They were also pleased that the courses were offered throughout the state because 

state and local government agencies are reluctant to authorize travel for their 

employees. 
38

Interviewees spoke favorably about the periodic conference calls and web 

conferences, saying that the calls: 

• Offered an opportunity to learn from peers about initiatives around the 

country; 

• Focused the conversation on state-level issues; and 

• Generated useful discussions and presentations on training techniques. 

OUTCOMES

Program activities improved awareness of pedestrian safety issues 

There was a consensus among interviewees that Program activities have created 

momentum for improved pedestrian safety initiatives at the state and local levels. For 

example, Caltrans, which has had four employees dedicated solely to pedestrian and 

bike safety since the late 1990s, took advantage of Program activities to focus and 

expand its pedestrian safety work. The courses have also given pedestrian safety 

issues legitimacy as a transportation issue rather than as an afterthought. Increasing 

awareness has been effective in stimulating dialogue on pedestrian safety that 

probably would not have occurred without the Program. 

Program activities spurred various pedestrian safety initiatives throughout the 

state 

The courses provided engineers and planners with strategies to incorporate pedestrian 

safety in their work. Caltrans staff said that some localities contacted them after the 

course requesting guidance on designing and implementing improvements to 

pedestrian facilities, such as curb extensions, marked crosswalks, median islands, and 

reduced curb radii. 

After learning about the FHWA’s pedestrian safety training through his membership in 

the State Strategic Highway Safety Committee, the director of public works in a rural 

county in Northern California attended the “Designing for Pedestrian Safety” course. 

After the course, he coordinated additional training in his part of the state so that his 

staff could participate. The training provided his staff with a deeper understanding 

and appreciation of pedestrian safety issues and established new relationships among 

staff from the planning, engineering, and public health departments. Resulting 

pedestrian safety improvements include revising subdivision design regulations by 

requiring bike lanes and offset sidewalks; narrowing streets to ten-foot travel lanes 

with four-foot shoulders; and adding bulb-outs, roundabouts, speed humps, and 

crosswalks. The county is also working on updating its general plan to reflect 

Complete Streets guidelines. 

In a Los Angeles suburb, the training was helpful in building relationships among 

engineers, planners, police, and transit operators. The city’s transportation planner 

continues to provide guidance to colleagues on pedestrian safety issues covered in the 

course. Some of the specific strategies she has seen implemented include zebra 

crosswalk striping, pedestrian refuge islands, in-pavement crosswalk lighting, and new 
39

pedestrian signals. In addition, the city is adding pedestrian countdown signals as they 

replace outdated signals. City officials are incorporating elements of the FHWA’s 

pedestrian safety training into the land use and circulation elements of their longrange land-use and zoning plans. 

Program activities improved the ability of public officials to address pedestrian 

safety issues 

Program activities have improved the ability of local governments to effectively and 

productively communicate the importance of pedestrian safety by providing real-life 

examples of “before and after” cases as well as qualitative and quantitative means of 

evaluating and explaining different strategies. One interviewee said that she has used 

slides from the courses to help explain pedestrian safety considerations for a project 

in her jurisdiction. 

Program activities have prompted follow up training initiatives 

• Because of the success of the courses, demand for training quickly outstripped 

its supply. Caltrans worked with the FHWA Resource Center to offer 13 

additional courses to augment the courses delivered though the FHWA’s 

Pedestrian Safety Program. 

• To expand the reach of the training material, Caltrans and FHWA Resource 

Center staff are creating an on-line course on developing a PSAP. The course 

will be available to local jurisdictions on demand. This online course will 

include detail not included in the face-to-face training. 

• Based on feedback from attendees and their own assessment of pedestrian 

safety needs around the state, Caltrans is working with the FHWA Resource 

Center to develop a template to assist local governments in developing PSAPs. 

There will be several different versions of the template to make it easier for 

local governments to customize the PSAPs to their own conditions. 

• The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program has increased interest in 

pedestrian safety among professionals, resulting in the Pedestrian Safety and 

Advocacy Conference held in Sacramento in September 2008. This conference 

was a forum to strengthen capacity and collaboration among pedestrian safety 

officials and advocates for the developing and implementing programs and 

policies to improve pedestrian safety. 

• Local governments have used the course materials—especially the PowerPoint 

presentations—to conduct their own training. This has allowed these agencies 

to deliver high-quality training locally and at minimal cost. 
40

• California Walks, a statewide pedestrian advocacy group, has used the material 

from the two-day “Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan” course to 

develop an abbreviated one-day course. This lessens the burden on 

transportation agencies that might not be able to send staff to a two-day 

course. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

Increase the number and frequency of courses 

This recommendation addresses two problems: First, there has been more demand for 

the courses than there are training slots available. Offering more courses would 

address this problem. Also, demand for courses will probably continue to grow as new 

employees attend and as previous attendees reinforce their skills and keep current on 

the state of the practice. Offering courses regularly would address this problem. 

Hire in-state (especially bilingual) trainers who can address problems unique to 

California and who can tailor courses based on local need 

Ultimately, one of the best ways to sustain the training efforts begun by the Program 

might be through hiring in-state trainers. These trainers could keep course content 

current and relevant based on the individual needs of the state and of the various 

regions within the state. 

Ensure that local in-kind matches for courses—logistics and hosting the event—do 

not require money or other resources that are prohibited by state law, especially 

travel; provide money for course planning logistics 

Interviewees said that the local governments hosting courses were grateful that they 

did not have to spend money on trainers or training material. Also, delivering the 

training locally avoided the need for employees to travel to the course location, an 

important consideration given the reluctance of many states to fund employee travel. 

Nonetheless, several interviewees said that the logistics of course planning were 

complicated and time consuming and suggested that the FHWA assist in this task. 

Distribute nationwide Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety resources based on 

the extent of the pedestrian safety problem in the focus location. 

Interviewees felt that Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety resources could be 

better targeted to the locations most in need of pedestrian safety investments by 

allocating resources based on the extent of each state’s pedestrian safety problem. 
41

MICHIGAN

PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

In 2002, there were 175 pedestrian fatalities in Michigan, the eighth highest in the 

country, making it a focus state for the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety 

Program. Michigan’s FHWA division office worked with the MDOT to increase 

awareness of the Program and its training opportunities. 

Before being designated a focus state, Michigan’s Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory 

Commission had already begun the process of developing a Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Safety Action Plan as part of the state’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This group 

consists of representatives from the Governor’s office, the Departments of 

Community Health, Education, and Transportation as well as the State Police, the 

Office of Highway Safety Planning, the Office of the Services to the Aging, and three 

representatives from the county, city, and township level. 

The focus state designation gave MDOT additional resources to promote pedestrian 

safety initiatives that will be included in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. MDOT 

decided to offer the “Designing for Pedestrian Safety” course first because it provided 

practical safety countermeasures that could be used to engage local communities in 

pedestrian safety education. 

Table A5 Pedestrian Safety Activities in Michigan 

Fiscal Year Activity 2006 2007 Total

Developing a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (2-day) 0 1 1 

Designing for Pedestrian Safety (2-day) 4 0 4 

Planning & Designing for Pedestrian Safety (3-day) 0 1 1 

Total 4 2 6 

REACTION

MDOT felt that the focus state designation raised the visibility of pedestrian safety 

and encouraged them to consider pedestrian safety in all their efforts. MDOT staff 

who worked on safety issues initially thought that the focus state designation 

reflected poorly on their pedestrian safety work. However, they came to appreciate 

the training opportunities the designation provided and the momentum it gave to 

pedestrian safety improvements. 

Interviewees said that course attendees were very pleased with the courses. They felt 

that the courses: 
42

• Raised awareness about pedestrian safety; 

• Increased engineers understanding of how to implement pedestrian safety 

countermeasures and crash reduction strategies; 

• Offered opportunities to network with a diverse set of professionals to 

encourage collaboration on pedestrian safety; and 

• Provided the statewide team working on pedestrian and bicycle safety issues in 

the Strategic Highway Safety Plan a better understanding of pedestrian issues 

and a broader set of solutions for addressing them. 

Interviewees spoke favorably about the conference calls and web conferences, saying 

that the events: 

• Provided useful information on current pedestrian safety initiatives in cities 

and states around the country; and 

• Allowed participants to share ideas and learn from each other. 

OUTCOMES

Program activities brought together professionals from different disciplines to 

jointly address pedestrian safety challenges. 

Course attendees included transportation and public health professionals and 

agencies. By encouraging participation from agencies and professionals not directly 

related to transportation, the message of the courses reached a broader audience. 

Interviewees stated that the courses promoted better awareness and understanding of 

the connection between planning, engineering, and public health and safety. The 

Building Healthy Communities program managed by the Michigan Department of 

Community Health includes physical activity as one of its primary components. The 

training provided by the Program dovetailed nicely with the goal of bringing 

pedestrian and bicycle issues into master plans. 

Program activities helped develop relationships among safety professionals from 

a variety of disciplines and encouraged an interdisciplinary approach to 

addressing safety issues. 

The Michigan Department of Community Health has been working with MDOT for 

several years. The Program gave them an opportunity to promote pedestrian safety 

through this partnership, creating advocates for the issue. 
43

Program activities helped draw funding to pedestrian safety issues. 

Until 2006, Michigan did not use any of its targeted safety funding to address 

pedestrian safety. Detroit requested and received safety money to install pedestrian 

countdown signals after learning about them at the courses. 

Program activities spurred various pedestrian safety initiatives. 

State and local governments have used the information and visibility the Program 

activities to develop their own pedestrian safety initiatives. For example, Detroit—

designated a pedestrian safety focus city—now considers pedestrian safety 

enhancements in all its projects, including signal modifications. New strategies 

resulting from the training include: 

• Adding 185 countdown pedestrian signals at city intersections; plans are 

underway for 175 more 

• Installing zebra crosswalks 

• Specifying high visibility signs 

MDOT worked with the Michigan Attorney General’s office to create a 

presentation on pedestrian design and liability. 

Some course participants felt that their ideas for pedestrian safety improvements 

were not seriously considered by their agency or jurisdiction. Policy makers have 

sometimes resisted innovative techniques out of concern that the new approaches 

might cause unintended safety problems and open the jurisdiction up to liability 

lawsuits. Policy makers expressed concerns about strategies such as road diets, midblock crossings, and staggered crosswalks. 

To address this concern, MDOT develop a presentation that demonstrated the safety 

and efficacy of these new pedestrian safety applications. With the help of the 

Michigan Attorney General’s Office, the presentation also included liability 

information specific to Michigan. The presentation has been successful in easing 

liability concerns. MDOT has delivered this presentation several times, including at a 

statewide conference on community health. Plans have been made to present it to 

the Michigan annual traffic safety summit, the County Road Association, and the 

Institute of Transportation Engineers. 

Program courses helped with the creation of pedestrian safety audits. 

Staff from FHWA’s Michigan division office are using the information from the Program 

courses and from another FHWA course on road safety audits to promote pedestrian 

safety audits. Traffic and safety specialists volunteered their time to implement the 

first road safety audit. Recommendations to improve pedestrian safety were 

developed and presented to MDOT’s executive committee. Managers at MDOT are 

exploring ways to continue the audits. 
44

The Designing for Pedestrian Safety course has helped participants understand 

the links between ADA compliance and good design. 

Installing ramps for ADA compliance is not always done correctly. The Focused 

Approach to Pedestrian Safety course provided useful information on the correct 

design and placement of ramps and crosswalks. Representatives from FHWA’s 

Michigan office have collected photographs of appropriate designs to address both 

ADA and pedestrian safety requirements. 

SUGGESTIONS FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT

Increase the number and frequency of courses 

The six courses offered thus far have been well attended and well received. However, 

there is still high demand for the courses, especially outside the state’s major cities. 

Conduct informal peer reviews of PSAPs. 

Building on lessons learned from other states, representatives from FHWA or focus 

state peers could offer suggestions for improvements or changes to PSAPs. 

Conduct a study to understand what safety-enhancement strategies have been 

most effective in improving pedestrian safety. 

Providing empirical evidence of the effectiveness of new procedures would give added 

support when introducing strategies. This information would provide professionals 

with the ability to promote certain approaches to address specific problems, e.g., the 

most effective strategies for mid-block crossings based on road type and volume of 

traffic and pedestrians. 

Include content including pedestrian safety considerations as a standard part of 

the project development process. 

One of the most common problems cited by interviewees was that pedestrian safety 

considerations are frequently addressed as an afterthought, a task that is outside the 

normal project development process. The Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety

courses should emphasize the importance of including pedestrian safety elements in 

the normal project development process and perhaps provide suggestions for process 

changes to address this problem. 
45

Include components for bike safety and ADA compliance 

It can be difficult for transportation agencies to broaden their congestion-oriented 

planning and operations to consider non-motorized transportation and ADA 

compliance. Integrating these topics into a single training opportunity would provide a 

more comprehensive approach. 

LESSONS LEARNED

• Having senior management introduce the courses ensured their buy-in to the 

goal of pedestrian safety and signaled to course attendees that pedestrian 

safety is a high priority in their organization. 

• Conducting the course safety audit in a location that is targeted for 

improvements provides valuable suggestions for the expected pedestrian safety 

improvements. 

• Providing attendees with information about course content prior to the course 

has been helpful. 
46

Appendix B. Interview Questions 

Interview Protocol for Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Evaluation 

Background: 

• What are the pedestrian safety responsibilities of your organization? 

• What are the pedestrian safety responsibilities of your job? 

• What are the main safety-related (but not necessarily pedestrian-related) 

concerns of your organization and in your city and state? 

• What are the main pedestrian-safety-related concerns of you organization and 

your city/state? 

Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program Activities: 

• What Program activities have you participated in? 

• What is the relevance of the learning content to your job responsibilities? 

• What are the most important information (skills, tools, policies, etc.) you took 

from these activities? 

• How were you chosen to participate in these activities? 

Pedestrian Safety Initiatives: 

• What pedestrian safety initiatives have you, your organization, or your 

associates undertaken as a result of participating in the Program? 

• What was your process for choosing these initiatives compared to other 

initiatives or no initiatives? 

• What role did Program activities play in influencing your decision to undertake 

these initiatives? 

• Which of the Program activities were most effective in spurring or enabling 

action? Which were least effective? Why? 

Results: 

• What were the results of these activities? For example, what changes, if any, 

have occurred in safety policies, practices, behaviors, or institutions? 

• What were the key success factors and obstacles in achieving these results? 

• What is the likelihood these initiatives would have occurred or succeeded in 

the absence of the Focused Approach to Pedestrian Safety Program? 

• What were the key success factors and obstacles in choosing and undertaking 

these initiatives? 

• Which types of Program activities were most effective in spurring or enabling 

action? Which were least helpful? Why 

• What are your plans for future pedestrian safety initiatives? 
47

Recommendations and Lessons Learned 

• What are your recommendations for the design and implementation of future 

pedestrian safety training programs? 

• What other things could FHWA do to assist you in addressing pedestrian safety 

in your state? 

• What lessons have you learned from planning and implementing pedestrian 

safety initiatives?