i

INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS: AN INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

April 2022

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS 

FOR PEDESTRIANS 

AND BICYCLISTS

Informational Guide
ii

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

FOREWORD

When designed with pedestrians and bicyclists explicitly in mind, all types of intersections can facilitate safe, 

accessible, convenient, and comfortable walking and bicycling. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is 

pursuing the goal of eliminating deaths and serious injuries on our Nation’s roads and recognizes the Safe System 

approach as integral to reaching this goal. At intersections, the Safe System approach involves minimizing risks to all 

road users by applying a kinetic energy management model that relies on design features that lower vehicle speeds, 

separate road users, remove conflict points, and reduce conflict point severity. To varying degrees, both traditional 

and innovative/alternative intersection designs may exhibit some or all these kinetic energy management model 

characteristics.

Additionally, FHWA promotes an array of strategies and treatments known as the Proven Safety Countermeasures, 

many of which benefit pedestrians and bicyclists and are applicable at intersections, encourages the pursuit of 

Complete Streets solutions, and produces guidance on bicyclist and pedestrian facility selection. It is a holistic 

approach of combining all of these elements – the Safe System approach, innovative/alternative intersection designs, 

Proven Safety Countermeasures, Complete Streets, and facility selection best practices – that is the foundation of 

this informational guide intended to help agencies create walkable and bikeable intersections that are safer for all 

users.

The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and design to 

implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero fatalities and serious injuries while also making roads better 

places for walking and bicycling. This guide serves as a supplement to FHWA’s series of intersection informational 

guides and makes direct connections to other FHWA bikeway and pedestrian facility selection guides.

Michael S. Griffith

Director, Office of Safety Technologies
iii

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Notice

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

information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this 

document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in 

this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.

Non-Binding Content

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any 

way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law 

or agency policies. While this is non-binding guidance, you must comply with the applicable statutes or regulations.

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and 

the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize 

the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its 

programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Cover photos source: FHWA
iv

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Technical REPORT Documentation Page

1. REPORT NO.

FHWA-SA-22-017

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

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide

5. REPORT DATE

April 2022

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE

7. AUTHOR(S)

Lauren Blackburn (VHB), Michael Dunn (VHB), Ryan Martinson (Toole 

Design), Pete Robie (Toole Design), and Katy O’Reilly (Open Doors 

Organization)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 

REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS

VHB 

940 Main Campus Dr Ste 500 

Raleigh, NC 27606

10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

DTFH61-16-D-00005

12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD 

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

FHWA

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

This report was produced under the direction of Jeffrey Shaw, Intersections Program Manager, FHWA Office of 

Safety, who served as the task order Contracting Officer’s Representative.

16. ABSTRACT

Intersections are critical points of access to local and regional destinations for all roadway users. When designed 

with pedestrians and bicyclists explicitly in mind, all types of intersections can facilitate safe, accessible, 

convenient, and comfortable walking and bicycling. The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the 

practice concerning intersection planning and design to implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero 

fatalities and serious injuries while improving mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

The primary intersection types discussed in this guide include traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, 

Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections, Reduced Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) 

intersections, Displaced Left Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). This guide also 

includes discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and alternative 

intersections, describes countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections, 

and summarizes the application of intersection analysis methods for the safety and mobility of pedestrians and 

bicyclists.

This guide serves as a supplement to the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) series of intersection 

informational guides and makes direct connections to other FHWA bikeway and pedestrian facility selection 

guides. Part I presents three foundational principles for planning and designing intersections for pedestrians 

and bicyclists. Part 2 presents design concepts for each of the intersection types discussed in this guide 

and illustrates options and design flexibility for incorporating a variety of pedestrian and bicycling facility 

types. This guide is intended to supplement, but not replace, design guidance, traffic control standards, and 

countermeasure selection criteria.

17. KEY WORDS

intersection, pedestrian, bicyclist, bike, bikeway, alternative intersection, 

accessibility

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

No restrictions.

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS 

REPORT) Unclassified

20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS PAGE) 

Unclassified

21. NO. OF PAGES 

75

22. PRICE

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

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE
vi

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

CONTENTS

List of Figures.................................................................................................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables..................................................................................................................................................................................... ix

Acronyms............................................................................................................................................................................................ x

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

PART I. Principles for Including Pedestrians and Bicyclists at Intersections ....................................................................3

Expect Pedestrians and Bicyclists at All Intersections ...................................................................................................3

Use a Safe System Approach ...............................................................................................................................................5

Provide Access for All Ages and Abilities ..........................................................................................................................6

Existing Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Selection Guidance .....................................................................................9

Common Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Features and Countermeasures for Intersections ............................ 11

Assessment Techniques for Intersection Alternatives ................................................................................................. 12

PART II. Designs for Intersection Types.....................................................................................................................................17

Intersection Types and Design Concepts ........................................................................................................................ 18

Stop-Controlled Intersections ............................................................................................................................................20

Traditional Signalized Intersection.................................................................................................................................... 23

Roundabout .............................................................................................................................................................................27

Median U-Turn (MUT) Intersection..................................................................................................................................... 31

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection ........................................................................................................... 35

Quadrant Roadway (QR) Intersection............................................................................................................................... 40

Displaced Left Turn (DLT) Intersection ............................................................................................................................. 43

Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI) ............................................................................................................................. 46

Additional Intersection Design Considerations .............................................................................................................50

Intersections in Context....................................................................................................................................................... 55

Resources for Additional Information ...................................................................................................................................... 56

Planning for and Selecting Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways .............................................................................. 56

Design Guidance for Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways at Intersections............................................................57

Assessment Techniques for Including Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Intersections ............................................. 58

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................................................60

References....................................................................................................................................................................................... 61
vii

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Multilane roundabout with RRFBs at pedestrian crossings. ......................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Green colored pavement used to designate bike lane and mixing zone. ............................................... 6

Figure 3. Signalized intersection with bicycle lanes, wide crosswalks, and bicycle signal face.......................... 9

Figure 4. Early considerations for intersection projects. ...............................................................................................15 

Figure 5. Considerations for designing the pedestrian and bicyclist network at intersections. .........................16 

Figure 6. Intersection design cut sheet key. .....................................................................................................................19

Figure 7. MRS intersection with sidepath. ..........................................................................................................................21 

Figure 8. AWS intersection with bike lanes. .....................................................................................................................22

Figure 9. Traditional signalized intersection with bike lanes. ......................................................................................24 

Figure 10. Traditional signalized intersection with separated bike lanes. ................................................................25 

Figure 11. Traditional signalized intersection with sidepaths. ......................................................................................26

Figure 12. Roundabout with bike lanes. ............................................................................................................................28

Figure 13. Roundabout with separated bike lanes. ........................................................................................................29

Figure 14. Roundabout with sidepaths. .............................................................................................................................30

Figure 15. MUT with separated bike lanes. ......................................................................................................................32

Figure 16. MUT with sidepaths.............................................................................................................................................33 

Figure 17. MUT with sidepaths and U-turn bulbs. ...........................................................................................................34 

Figure 18. RCUT with Z-crossing and sidepaths. ............................................................................................................36

Figure 19. RCUT with separated bike lanes. ....................................................................................................................37

Figure 20. RCUT with sidepaths. ........................................................................................................................................38 

Figure 21. RCUT with sidepaths and U-turn bulbs. .........................................................................................................39

Figure 22. Quadrant roadway intersection with separated bike lanes......................................................................41 

Figure 23. Quadrant roadway intersection with sidepaths. .........................................................................................42

Figure 24. DLT intersection with separated bike lanes. ................................................................................................44 

Figure 25. DLT intersection with sidepaths. .....................................................................................................................45

Figure 26. DDI with separated bike lanes and outer sidewalks. ................................................................................47 
viii

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 27. DDI with separated bike lanes and inner sidewalks. .................................................................................48 

Figure 28. DDI with sidepaths. ............................................................................................................................................49 

Figure 29. Ramp alignments at intersections with bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Preferred alignment is the 90 degree or perpendicular approach. ..........................................................................50 

Figure 30. Right-Turn Approaches.......................................................................................................................................51 

Figure 31. Bikeway transitions at intersections................................................................................................................52

Figure 32. Different bikeway options.................................................................................................................................53
ix

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Identifying Demand: Roadway Characteristics and Context. ......................................................................... 8

Table 2. Assessment considerations for conditions at Stop-Controlled intersections. ........................................20

Table 3. Assessment considerations for conditions at traditional signalized intersections. ...............................23

Table 4. Assessment considerations for conditions at roundabouts. .......................................................................27

Table 5. Assessment considerations for conditions at MUT intersections. ..............................................................31

Table 6. Assessment considerations for conditions at RCUT intersections. ...........................................................35

Table 7. Assessment considerations for conditions at QR intersections. .................................................................40

Table 8. Assessment considerations for conditions at DLT intersections. ...............................................................43

Table 9. Assessment considerations for conditions at DDIs........................................................................................46
x

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

ACRONYMS

AADT annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

AID Audible Information Devices 

AII alternative intersections and interchanges

APS accessible pedestrian signal

AWS All Way Stop

BIKESAFE Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

CFI continuous flow intersection

CMF crash modification factor

DDI Diverging Diamond Interchange

DLT Displaced Left Turn

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSM Highway Safety Manual

ICE Intersection Control Evaluation

ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers

LED light-emitting diode

LOS level of service

LPI leading pedestrian interval

MOE measure of effectiveness

mph miles per hour

MRS Minor Road Stop

MUT Median U-Turn

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

PEDSAFE Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

PROWAG (Proposed) Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines

QR Quadrant Roadway

RCUT Restricted Crossing U-Turn

RRFB Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

RSA road safety audit

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

SPF Safety Performance Function

SPICE Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation

SSI Safe System for Intersections

STEP Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian

USAB United States Access Board

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

vpd vehicles per day
1

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

INTRODUCTION

Intersections are critical points of access to local and regional destinations for all roadway users. However, intersections 

are also planned points of potential conflict between road users. For this reason, intersection safety is critical to the 

overall safety of the transportation system. This is especially true when considering pedestrians and bicyclists, users 

who are typically more vulnerable compared to their counterparts traveling in motor vehicles. The share of bicyclist 

and pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries that occur at intersections is notable. From 2015 to 2019, an estimated 

57 percent of bicyclist and 39 percent of pedestrian fatalities and incapacitating injuries in the U.S. occurred at 

intersections or were intersection-related.(1,2)

When designed with pedestrians and bicyclists explicitly in mind, all types of intersections can facilitate safe, accessible, 

convenient, and comfortable walking and bicycling. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is pursuing the goal 

of eliminating deaths and serious injuries on our Nation’s roads and recognizes the Safe System approach as integral 

to reaching this goal. The Safe System approach is predicated on six key principles:(3)

1. Death and serious injury are unacceptable.

2. Humans make mistakes.

3. Humans are vulnerable.

4. Responsibility is shared.

5. Safety is proactive.

6. Redundancy is critical.

At intersections, the Safe System approach involves minimizing risks to all road users by applying a kinetic energy 

management model that relies on design features that lower vehicle speeds, separate road users, remove conflict 

points, and reduce conflict point severity. To varying degrees, both traditional and innovative/alternative intersection 

designs may exhibit some or all these kinetic energy management model characteristics.

Intersections that enable safe bicyclist and pedestrian crossings and mobility are integral to the implementation of 

Complete Streets.

(4) Intersections in a Complete Streets system provide consistent facility types and wayfinding for 

people of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets and intersections increase transportation choices and provide more 

equitable access to destinations. 

The purpose of this guide is to inform the state of the practice concerning intersection planning and design to 

implement solutions that help achieve the goal for zero fatalities and serious injuries while also making roads better 

places for walking and bicycling. This works in concert with the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Policy 

Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations released in 2010, which 

provides support for the planning, design, construction, and operation of “convenient, safe, and context-sensitive 

facilities that foster increased use by bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”(5)

The primary intersection types discussed in this guide include the intersection types documented in FHWA’s 

Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report(6) and the series of informational guides on different 

types of intersections: signalized,

(7) roundabout,(8) Median U-Turn (MUT),(9) Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT),(10)

Quadrant Roadway (QR),

(11) Displaced Left Turn (DLT),(12) and Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI).(13) This guide also 

includes discussion about stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersection crossings for bicyclists and pedestrians. 

Broadly stated, studies on the safety performance of roundabouts and various innovative/alternative intersection 

designs prove they can be effective at reducing fatal and serious injury crashes for all road users when compared 

to traditional signalized or unsignalized options. However, regardless of intersection form, when pedestrians and 

bicyclists are not placed at the forefront of the planning and design stages of project development, the postconstruction results may be unsatisfactory in terms of accessibility, comfort, and convenience, and even potentially 

detrimental to the safety of non-motorized users. 
2

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

FHWA promotes an array of strategies and treatments known as the Proven Safety Countermeasures, many of which 

benefit pedestrians and bicyclists and are applicable at intersections.(14) FHWA has also produced guidance on bicyclist

and pedestrian facility selection and speed management.

(15,16,17) It is a holistic approach of combining these elements 

– the Safe System approach, Complete Streets, innovative intersection designs, Proven Safety Countermeasures, 

and facility selection practices – that is the foundation of this informational guide intended to help agencies create 

walkable and bikeable intersections that are safer for all users.

This guide illustrates integration of bikeways and pedestrian pathways at and across traditional and alternative 

intersections, describes countermeasures applicable to pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections, and 

summarizes the application of intersection analysis methods for the safety and mobility of pedestrians and bicyclists. 

The guide presents design scenarios for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections as part of new construction 

projects or when contemplating substantive changes to the traffic control or geometry of an existing intersection. 

The bikeway and pedestrian pathway facilities are shaped by the context of the location and characteristics of all the 

users approaching and traveling through at-grade intersections and across interchange ramps. 

FHWA supports State and local agencies with other guidance and tools that describe decision-making approaches 

for prioritizing safety, accessibility, and mobility for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections. FHWA guidance for 

performance-based project development and design describes the benefits of objective, data-driven decisionmaking. Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) guidance notes that a growing number of transportation agencies are 

creating and adopting ICE policies, procedures, and tools.(18) Although there are differences among these ICE policies, 

they are consistent in emphasizing transparency, flexibility, and adaptability. Agencies implementing ICE have noted 

multiple benefits, including:

» Balanced, cost-effective choices in the selection of intersection solutions. 

» Consistent documentation that improves the transparency of project decisions. 

» Awareness of innovative intersection solutions that rely on objective performance metrics 

for consistent comparisons. 

This guide serves as a supplement to FHWA’s series of intersection informational guides and makes 

direct connections to other FHWA bikeway and pedestrian facility selection guides. Part I presents 

three foundational principles for planning and designing intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Part 2 presents design concepts for each of the intersection types discussed in this guide and illustrates 

options and design flexibility for incorporating a variety of pedestrian and bicycling network types. 

This guide is intended to supplement, but not replace, design guidance, traffic control standards, and 

countermeasure selection criteria.
3

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

PART I. PRINCIPLES FOR INCLUDING 

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS AT 

INTERSECTIONS

This guide is grounded in three key principles for planning and designing intersections for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Each is described in more detail below and followed by examples of desired outcomes. Refer to Part II of this guide 

for specific design resources and conceptual illustrations of these principles. 

Expect Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

at All Intersections

Use a Safe System Approach Provide Access for 

All Ages and Abilities

Expect Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

at All Intersections

People walk or bicycle for a variety of purposes, including to access jobs, schools and services, shop or seek 

healthcare, engage in recreation and tourism, improve personal health, and limit environmental impacts. Intersection 

projects are opportunities to provide safer, more equitable, and more accessible facilities for people walking or 

bicycling through the area. Pedestrians and bicyclists should be expected to cross or be present at all intersections, 

even if infrequently when compared to motor vehicle traffic volumes.

This principle is consistent with a Complete Streets approach to transportation planning and design. Complete 

Streets are streets and intersections designed and operated for mobility and safety of all users. Complete Streets 

are context based and are unique to local conditions, but they typically include features that provide access for 

pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists of all ages and abilities. Intersection projects should include space 

for sidewalks, bicycle facilities, crossings, traffic controls, and appurtenances to accommodate the changing context 

and planned network. While new construction or reconstruction may offer more possibilities, routine improvements 

to existing intersections can benefit pedestrians and bicyclists. Incremental changes at intersections- such as signal 

timing adjustments, bus stop placement, or installation of vehicle turn lanes – are also opportunities to improve safety 

and mobility for bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections. 

During the planning, scoping, and preliminary design stages of an intersection project, transportation officials should 

consider the history and needs of people living in and affected by the project area. A quarter-mile to three-mile radius 

around an intersection typically represents the “walkshed” or “bikeshed” of an intersection location, or the area that 

people potentially access as pedestrians or bicyclists. An assessment of the demographic and socioeconomic make-
4

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

up of populations, neighborhoods, and business communities in the walkshed or bikeshed area helps identify people 

or groups who are underserved or negatively impacted by the existing transportation system. 

Practitioners should consider bicyclists and pedestrians with a wide variety of preferences, ages, experiences, 

accessibility needs, and trip purposes. Some pedestrians have mobility, vision, or hearing disabilities, or walk at 

slower speeds due to age or health condition. Children, visitors, and people with cognitive disabilities may be less 

able to assess crash risks or safely navigate complex intersections. 

An assessment of affected populations, along with field review and input from residents and stakeholders, helps 

to characterize the needs and preferences of pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersection. In most cases and 

developed contexts, according to the FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, most bicyclists are “interested but concerned” 

and prefer separated bikeways at intersections.(15) Additionally, especially in areas where the population is aging or 

transportation options are limited, pedestrians may have limited mobility and access at crossings and intersections.

The following are desirable outcomes of expecting pedestrians and bicyclists at all intersections:

» Safer intersections in terms of the risk of harm to pedestrians and bicyclists from crashes involving 

motor vehicles, such as the roundabout shown in Figure 1.

» Accessible, comfortable, and intuitive travel paths for non-motorized users, including straightforward 

paths and visibility enhancements that improve navigation through intersections.

» Express consideration given to non-motorized user convenience, travel time, and delay by providing 

continuous and direct routes across intersections.

» Equitable right-of-way and space reserved for appropriately designed bikeway and pedestrian 

pathway networks in response to increasing development, traffic conditions, and travel demand, such 

as pedestrian refuge islands.

» Incremental changes or modifications to intersection designs that prioritize the pedestrian or bicyclist 

while still accommodating large vehicles.

Figure 1. Multilane roundabout with RRFBs at pedestrian crossings. Source: FHWA.
5

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Use a Safe System Approach

Given that bicyclists and pedestrians are expected users of intersections and are more susceptible to death or serious 

injury when involved in a crash with a motor vehicle, it follows that a Safe System approach for pedestrians and 

bicyclists must prioritize their safety without sacrificing their comfort and convenience.(19) The Safe System approach 

minimizes crash risk by encouraging the selection of design alternatives that remove conflict points or separate road 

users, lower traffic speeds, and reduce conflict angles. 

The Safe System approach considers crash risk in the functional area approaching an intersection, where turn 

lanes develop, and operating speeds may change between users. Traffic lanes and bike lanes may transition at 

“mixing zones” in this area – typically from 100 to 350 feet away from the center of the intersection. More complex 

intersections, such as signalized intersections with multiple turn lanes or continuous flow operations, have longer 

transitions between bicycle and vehicle lanes. 

Drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists depend on traffic controls such as signs, signals, lane markings, and geometric 

features to help them navigate the intersection. The Safe System approach considers how traffic control, speed 

management techniques, and geometric features work together to separate users, slow vehicle speeds, and mitigate 

conflicts and crashes. 

Planners and designers can identify conflicts and opportunities by conducting a road safety audit (RSA) when improving 

an existing intersection. RSAs bring together stakeholders representing different disciplines and perspectives to 

identify current deficiencies, such as paths or routes with poor accessibility, low rates of yielding at crossings, and 

restricted visibility. Members or representatives of communities or groups disproportionately impacted by the existing 

transportation system should be invited to join the RSA.

The following are examples of outcomes that may emerge from taking this approach: 

» Controlled, lower speed at turning movements by eliminating higher-speed, free-flowing turning 

movements, which reduces kinetic energy in the event of a crash.

» Minimized conflict points by avoiding vehicle turning movements during pedestrian or bicycle 

crossing signal phases and limiting the distance of merging or mixing zones with bike lanes.

» Increased visibility from overhead lighting and countermeasures for improving yielding at crossings.

» Improved visibility at conflict points and use of enhanced pavement markings for conspicuity of 

merging or mixing zones with bike lanes, as shown in figure 2.
6

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 2. Green colored pavement used to designate bike lane and mixing zone. Source: FHWA.

Provide Access for All Ages and Abilities

Within the U.S. transportation context, terms such as “access” and “accessibility” seem similar but actually have 

different meanings. “Access” speaks to the relative ease with which people can embark on their intended travel 

via their preferred mode, while “accessibility” refers to whether a transportation facility is usable by individuals with 

disabilities. Both “access” and “accessibility” are necessary to the planning, design, and operation of intersections 

and other transportation facilities. Pedestrian facilities must be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, 

including pedestrians with vision, mobility, hearing, and/or cognitive disabilities. Pedestrian and bicyclist access at 

intersections also considers the overall demand for connecting people of all ages and abilities to nearby destinations 

and to the transportation network.

Pedestrian and bicyclist demand is driven by the land use context. The 7th edition of the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials’ (AASHTO’s) Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets – referred 

to as the “Green Book” – includes a new approach for considering both functional classifications and development 

context for designing roadways.(19) The Green Book refers to each of the following context classifications: 

Rural: Areas with the lowest density (widely dispersed or no residential, commercial, and industrial uses) and large 

setbacks. Pedestrians and bicyclists travel farther distances to destinations in rural areas and walking and bicycling 

activity is lower than in more developed contexts. 
7

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Rural Town: Areas with low density but diverse land uses with commercial main street character, potential for onstreet parking and sidewalks, and small setbacks. People may walk or bicycle in or to rural centers, and this activity 

may increase near community services or neighborhoods where people may be more dependent on transit, walking, 

or bicycling for basic transportation. 

Suburban: Areas with medium density, mixed land uses within and among structures (including mixed-use town 

centers, commercial corridors, and residential areas), and varied building setbacks. Suburban areas grow rapidly 

and include destinations where pedestrians and bicyclists frequent (such as transit stops, service centers, and retail 

markets). High traffic volumes and speeds at intersections present increased risk for fatal and serious injury crashes 

with pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Urban: Areas with high density, mixed land uses with destinations for pedestrians and bicyclists cluster near 

intersections. Improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists in this constrained environment may lead to consideration 

for trade-offs with on-street parking, motor vehicle throughput, and turn lane operations.

Urban Core: Areas with highest density, mixed land uses within and among predominately high-rise structures, and 

short setbacks. The urban core produces the highest levels of pedestrian bicycle activity at intersections. Slower 

expected vehicle speeds (resulting both from traffic congestion and speed management) support enhanced focus 

on bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections, including options for exclusive phases or advance movements at 

crossings. 

Table 1 presents a matrix that can help describe demand, given various contexts and roadway functional classifications. 

Vehicle speeds and pedestrian and bicyclist demand may vary based on roadway classification and other design 

and context characteristics. Roads that carry higher traffic, such as minor and principal arterials, increase exposure 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. Higher vehicle speeds increase the likelihood of fatal and serious injury pedestrian 

or bicycle crashes. Therefore, the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians who cross intersections with higher levels of 

exposure and increased vehicle speeds calls for more separation from traffic. 
8

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Table 1. Identifying Demand: Roadway Characteristics and Context. Source: Modified from NCHRP Report 926, 

Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections.

(20)

Roadway Type Rural Rural Town Suburban Urban Urban Core

Local 

Road

Vehicle Speed Medium Low Low Low Low

Bike Demand Low Medium to 

High

Low to 

Medium

Medium to 

High High

Pedestrian Demand Low Medium Medium High High

Collector 

Road

Vehicle Speed High Medium High Low Low

Bike Demand Low Medium Low to 

Medium High High

Pedestrian Demand Low Medium Low High High

Minor 

Arterial

Vehicle Speed High High High Medium Medium

Bike Demand Low Low Low to 

Medium Medium High

Pedestrian Demand Low Low Low Medium High

Principal 

Arterial 

(NonFreeway)

Vehicle Speed High High High High Medium

Bike Demand Low Low Low Medium Medium

Pedestrian Demand Low Low Low Medium Medium

The following are outcomes that support the safety and comfort of pedestrians and bicyclists with a wide range of 

accessibility needs and limited familiarity with complex intersection operations: 

» Appropriate separation, based on context, between vehicle traffic, bike lanes, pedestrian pathways 

and crossings using clear markings, geometric features, and traffic controls, such as depicted in 

figure 3.

» Provisions for user separation and channelization, including refuge islands, and if signalized, signal 

timing strategies that provide advance and/or extended pedestrian or bicycle signal phases. 

» Optimized timing to facilitate single-stage crossings through the intersection for all pedestrians and 

bicyclists.

» Minimal changes to pathway and curb ramp gradients at the approaches to and across the 

intersection.

» Intuitive placement of actuators and utility structures along the length of the pathway and pedestrian 

route for people with vision loss.

» Minimal clutter and good visibility of detectable warning surfaces.

» Accessible pedestrian signals to communicate pedestrian signal phases.

» Automatic (passive) detection and accessible pedestrian features at complex signalized intersections 

with bike lanes or for two-stage pedestrian crossings. 

» Use of reliable automatic (passive) detection to activate dynamic warning and/or traffic control 

devices when pedestrians and bicyclists are approaching or present at an intersection, especially for 

crossings that consist of more than one stage. 
9

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 3. Signalized intersection with bicycle lanes, wide crosswalks, and bicycle signal face. 

Source: FHWA.

Existing Bikeway and Pedestrian Facility Selection Guidance

Bikeways and pedestrian pathway types should be selected based on user needs, community goals for mobility and 

safety, and the role of the facilities within a larger existing and planned bicycle or pedestrian network. The following 

guidance documents and resources describe how bikeways and pedestrian facilities are selected or how to improve 

safety at crossings and intersections. 

Bikeway Network and Countermeasure Selection

The FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide documents the trade-offs for selecting different bikeway types and covers 

the process of selecting a bikeway from policymaking through the design decision.(15) The Bikeway Selection Guide

identifies preferred bikeway types based on traffic speed, motor vehicle volumes and contextual factors. As speeds 

increase above 30 miles per hour (mph) and traffic volumes exceed 6,000 vehicles per day (vpd), separated bikeways 

are preferred for roadways and intersections in suburban or urban contexts. 

Consider all roadway elements and associated design standards when determining alternatives for the design of 

the bikeway or pedestrian pathway. The Bikeway Selection Guide states the following “Where preferred design 

values cannot be achieved, reduced or minimum widths can be used to preserve the preferred bikeway type in the 

design. However, the use of minimum width bikeways should be limited to constrained roadways where desirable 

or preferred bikeway widths cannot be achieved after all other travel lanes have been narrowed to minimum widths 

appropriate for the context of the roadway. Where it is necessary to go below minimum widths, the preferred bikeway 

is infeasible, and it will be necessary to select another bikeway type.”(15)
10

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 926, Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety at Intersections, discusses how to appropriately identify and treat bicyclist safety issues at intersections.(21) The 

report includes a comprehensive overview of the current state of practice to implement bicyclist safety improvements 

at intersections. The guide lists and summarizes bicycle countermeasures for intersections, and the guide explains 

how they can be applied to specific crash types or safety problems. For example, countermeasures such as bicycle 

signals are identified as a countermeasure that separates modes or directs motorists to stop turning or traveling 

straight across bicycle crossings. 

The FHWA Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) is an interactive tool for 

reviewing bicycle safety countermeasures at intersections and along the network.(22) BIKESAFE includes intersection 

features or countermeasures such as bicycle signal heads and bike lanes.

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is a comprehensive bicycle facility design guide 

describing bicycle facility planning, design, and operations.(23) It presents background information about bicycle 

operations and safety, planning, and bicycle facility selection necessary for effective bicycle facility development. 

The core of the guide is the design guidance, general elements of design applicable to all bicycle facility types, and 

detailed guidance for each of the following bicycle facility types: sidepaths, separated bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, 

shared lanes, and bike lanes.

Pedestrian Network and Countermeasure Selection

The FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations includes two tables that assist 

with pedestrian countermeasure selection at unsignalized crossings.(16) Table 1 in the guide leverages research to 

identify applicable countermeasures based on tiers of roadway configurations, speeds, and annual average daily traffic 

(AADT) volumes. As approaching roadway speeds exceed 35 mph or 9,000 vpd, recommended countermeasures 

include Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), or other traffic control 

devices. Table 2 in the guide cross-references general safety issues to potential countermeasures, based on 

surrounding land development context, pedestrian travel patterns, and driver behaviors. 

NCHRP Report 926, Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections, discusses how to 

appropriately identify and treat pedestrian safety issues at intersections.(21) The guide lists and summarizes pedestrian 

countermeasures for intersections, and the guide explains how they can be applied to specific pedestrian crash types 

or safety problems. For example, countermeasures such as curb extensions and crossing islands are identified as a 

countermeasure that address where there are patterns of motorists and pedestrians failing to yield at intersections.

The FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) is an interactive tool for 

reviewing pedestrian safety countermeasures at intersections and along the network.(24) PEDSAFE includes 

intersection features or countermeasures such as RRFBs, PHBs, countdown timers at pedestrian signals, and curb 

design. 

FHWA facility and countermeasure selection tools such as those described above refer to and strongly encourage 

the use of Proven Safety Countermeasures at intersections.(14) These countermeasures are widely researched for 

reducing crashes and, for pedestrians and bicyclists, now include: Walkways, Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements, 

Pedestrian Refuge Islands, Bicycle Lanes, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 

(PHB), Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), Lighting, and Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users. 

The AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities provides comprehensive 

guidance on pedestrian facility design.(25) The core of the guide is design guidance including a discussion of elements 

of design and various facility types including walkways, sidewalks, sidepaths, roadway shoulders, shared streets, 

pedestrian malls, and transit streets. With respect to intersections, the guide includes discrete sections on crossing 

design and traffic control. Pedestrian crossing design principles are defined as: clarity, predictability, access, visibility, 

short wait, adequate pedestrian queuing area, adequate crossing time, limited exposure, clear crossing, and speed 

management.
11

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Common Pedestrian and Bicycle Design Features and 

Countermeasures for Intersections

A well-designed intersection maintains the desired bikeway or pedestrian pathway through the intersection, including 

crossing widths and setbacks consistent with the pedestrian pathways and bikeways approaching the intersection. 

The specific type of separation for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections corresponds to the facility type selected 

for the approaching or planned networks. This guide highlights several of the Proven Safety Countermeasures and 

network design features common to most or all intersection types.(14) The following describes these features and their 

functional purposes to pedestrian and bicycle operations at the intersection. 

Sidewalks: Pedestrian pathway and sidewalk widths reflect the development context and level of pedestrian activity 

approaching the intersection. Sidewalks must be accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including 

those assisted by sighted guides and caregivers. Sidepaths allow for both pedestrians and bicyclists to share a 

separated facility, and the width should be sufficient to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to pass while maintaining 

minimum operating space.(15) In areas where higher levels of pedestrian and/or bicyclist activity is expected, wider 

sidewalks and paths are desirable.

Crosswalks: Crosswalks are an extension of the pedestrian pathway, and the width of the crosswalk corresponds 

to the context and width of approaching pedestrian networks. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD) includes examples of crosswalk marking patterns and stipulates that crosswalks should be at least 6 feet 

wide (Section 3B.18)(26). Crosswalks may be wider than six feet to match the width of the sidewalks they connect 

to, or to allow two groups of pedestrians to pass each other comfortably while remaining within the crosswalk. 

Additionally, crosswalks should be aligned with curb ramps to provide a straightforward crossing experience for 

all pedestrians.(27,28) FHWA recommends three main crosswalk visibility enhancements as part of the Proven Safety 

Countermeasures: high-visibility crosswalks, improved lighting, and enhanced signing and pavement markings. Highvisibility crosswalk markings use more durable and reflective marking materials (e.g., thermoplastic tape or inlay 

instead of paint or brick markings) and crosswalk designs that improve visibility to both drivers and pedestrians 

compared to traditional transverse line crosswalks. FHWA recommends that high-visibility markings be considered 

at all uncontrolled crossings.(29) 

Pedestrian Refuge Islands: Refuge islands are medians that provide space for pedestrians and bicyclists to wait 

in between stages of a crossing movement. Refuge islands decrease the complexity of crossing movements for 

pedestrians and bicyclists by allowing them to focus fewer lanes or fewer movements at a time while waiting for 

an acceptable gap to cross the roadway. Pedestrian refuge islands should match the width of the crosswalk or be 

wide enough to provide a safe, comfortable, and convenient crossing experience for wheelchair users, bicyclists, or 

groups of pedestrians.(31) Push buttons can be used at crossings for a pedestrian who stops in the median to call the 

WALK phase for a two-stage crossing, or to extend the WALK phase.

Bikeways and Bike Crossings: Bicycle facilities are selected based on the users, roadway cross section, development 

context, traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and their function within the overall bikeway network. “Interested but 

concerned” bicyclists are the majority of the bicycling population.(14, 15) Separated bicycle facilities, such as sidepaths 

and separated bike lanes, present many benefits for this type of user. Other bikeway types include marked bike lanes 

and buffered bike lanes. Paved shoulders, wide outside lanes, and travel lanes with shared lane markings are not 

formal bikeways; however, these may be used to increase bicyclist comfort where more confident bicyclists choose 

to travel along roads without formal bikeways. Bike lane extension markings and intersection treatments designate 

where the bike lane or bicyclist crosses the intersection or stages for entering the intersection. The markings in these 

areas can be supplemented with green colored pavement to highlight where bicyclists cross vehicle paths through 

the intersection. Additional signs and markings may also be used to identify these bikeway crossings through the 

intersection. Use of green colored pavement for bike lanes, bicycle signal faces, intersection bicycle boxes, and twostage bicycle turn boxes are included in the MUTCD under interim approval.(32,33,34,35) Jurisdictions that desire to use 

traffic control devices under interim approval shall request permission from FHWA.
12

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Traffic Signals and Beacons: Traffic control signals, or traffic signals, offer numerous benefits when properly applied, 

such as promoting the orderly flow of traffic through the intersection, reducing the severity and frequency of certain 

crash types, and providing opportunities for vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians to cross a street or merge into traffic. 

The MUTCD includes nine warrants to guide installation of a traffic signal.(26)

Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) relay information about the status of the pedestrian signal indication in audible 

and tactile formats to communicate more effectively to pedestrians with vision loss or cognitive disabilities. When 

installing APS at an intersection, review curb ramp placement, roadway geometry and crossing distance to determine 

where to install push buttons and settings for audible indications. MUTCD sections 4E.08 through 4E.13 provide 

guidance on the consideration of these and other factors when installing APS.

Traffic signals may be designed with a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter 

the crosswalk before vehicles are given a green indication.(36) This allows pedestrians to establish their presence 

in the crosswalk before vehicles begin to move through the intersection, increasing the visibility of pedestrians to 

drivers and improving driver behavior. For pedestrians with low or no vision to have access to the safety benefits of 

LPI, the use of APS should also be considered when implementing LPI.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are proven safety 

countermeasures that can be implemented to control traffic at midblock crossings or uncontrolled intersections.

(14) The FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations includes PHBs for strong 

consideration at uncontrolled crossings on roads with speeds at or over 40 mph.(16) FHWA recommends RRFBs at 

multilane crossings with speed limits less than 40 mph.(24)

Bicycle signal faces may be an additional consideration at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal faces are included 

in the MUTCD under interim approval where it is desirable to provide separate control for bicycle movements.(33)

Assessment Techniques for Intersection Alternatives

Each intersection type is unique and presents different considerations for bicycling and pedestrian travel. There are 

several existing tools summarized here that can be used to analyze and compare intersection types with respect to 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety, comfort, and operations. These include the TRB Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), the 

AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (HSM) and other crash-based methods, the FHWA Safe System for Intersections 

(SSI) method, and the NCHRP Report 948 Design Flag Assessment technique. These tools help identify the conditions 

that benefit or impact bicyclists and pedestrians for each intersection type and assist with selecting a preferred 

intersection alternative. For additional information about these analysis tools, see the Resources section of this guide. 

Intersection Level of Service and Delay

The HCM evaluates the quality of service available to pedestrians and bicyclists traveling on different facilities in urban 

street settings.(37) Pedestrian level of service (LOS) in the HCM considers a variety of factors, including pedestrian 

delay, pedestrian travel speed, presence of street parking, sidewalk width, and motor vehicle speed. Higher vehicle 

speeds or volumes result in a lower pedestrian LOS score. Alternately, increased separation between motor vehicle 

movements and pedestrians increases the pedestrian LOS score. The HCM Bicycle LOS score is based on similar 

factors to the pedestrian LOS score, such as bicycle delay, bicycle travel speed, motor vehicle speed, and volume. It 

also considers the pavement condition rating. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle LOS in the HCM is a limited measure of pedestrian or bicyclist operational efficiency at 

intersections. Pedestrian delay in the HCM is determined based on the effective walk time to cross the major street 

and the cycle length. However, pedestrian delay is also a factor of overall travel distance and time between origins 

and destinations along the network. The HCM describes bicyclist delay as a factor of cycle length and vehicle turning 

movement volumes. Bicyclists who do not operate as other vehicles at the intersection experience different delay 

and travel time outcomes, similar to pedestrians. 
13

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

The Highway Safety Manual and Crash-Based Methods

The traditional approach to safety performance analysis is based on observed crash data. Safety Performance 

Functions (SPFs) and Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) are two of the primary building blocks of crash-based 

approaches. SPFs are equations that relate site characteristics (such as volume, traffic control, presence of turn 

lanes, and more) to the number of expected crashes. CMFs are factors developed through studies of crash data that 

represent the expected change in crashes after implementing a given countermeasure. The HSM is an authoritative 

guide to crash-based safety analysis.(38) The HSM contains predictive methods based on established SPFs and CMFs 

that can be used to estimate the safety performance effects of infrastructure improvements. Not all countermeasures 

or design treatments included or referenced in this guide have CMFs. Likewise, SPFs are not widely available for 

bicycle and pedestrian crashes. Additional research and data collection is needed to create or improve CMFs and 

SPFs and decision-making for bicycle and pedestrian safety at intersections.

NCHRP studies have developed spreadsheet tools by which to apply the HSM predictive methods.(39) These tools 

address intersections of rural two-lane roads, rural multilane highways, and urban and suburban arterials. The predictive 

method for urban and suburban arterials directly addresses pedestrian and bicyclist safety. It accounts for observed 

pedestrian and bicyclist crashes at the intersection, considers a variety of characteristics that affect pedestrian safety 

(e.g., pedestrian crossing volume, presence of transit, presence of schools, number of lanes crossed by a pedestrian), 

and allows the user to apply a variety of pedestrian- and bicyclist-specific CMFs corresponding to the appropriate 

improvement. There are limited CMFs available for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and countermeasure options 

at intersections, but this research is a high priority, with several efforts ongoing and information added to the CMF 

Clearinghouse,

(40) FHWA’s web-based repository of CMFs, as it becomes available. 

Safe System for Intersections (SSI) Method

FHWA developed the Safe System for Intersections (SSI) method for characterizing the extent to which an intersection 

design in a given context aligns with the principles of kinetic energy management and a Safe System approach.(41)

The method is readily implementable by intersection planners and designers and it dovetails with the typical project 

development process, designed to operate within Stage I ICE, at the scoping phase of project development where 

intersection alternatives are analyzed with respect to whether they meet project needs and are practical to pursue. 

The goal is to provide a technical basis by which intersection planners and designers can apply kinetic energy 

management to common intersection projects in the United States.

The method is made up of five components:

» Conflict point identification and classification.

» Conflict point exposure.

» Conflict point severity.

» Movement complexity.

» SSI measures of effectiveness and SSI scores.

The SSI method accounts for pedestrians and bicyclists by identifying all the conflict points at the intersection and 

computing their exposure (based on bicycle, pedestrian, and motorist volumes), severity (based on motor vehicle 

speed), and complexity. The complexity of conflict points encompasses several factors, including traffic control at the 

intersection, the number of conflicting lanes crossed without refuge, the speed of conflicting traffic, and the presence 

of either indirect paths for pedestrians and bicyclists or nonintuitive motor vehicle movements. The results of the SSI 

method include scores and other measures of effectiveness (MOEs) specific to bicyclists and pedestrians.

FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Indices: User Guide can be used to evaluate crosswalks and intersection 

approaches for pedestrian and bicyclist safety.(42) The safety indices address many of the same concepts as the SSI 

method, including conflict point identification and movement complexity for nonmotorized road users. The safety 

indices are useful if the intersection in question would benefit from a more granular analysis than that provided by 

the SSI method, particularly in the case of bicyclist routes through intersections.
14

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Design Flag Assessment

NCHRP Report 948, Guide for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges (AII), 

addresses safety in AII designs.(43) It includes specific material on pedestrian and bicyclist considerations at MUTs, 

RCUTs, DLTs, and DDIs. It also provides an approach to analyzing pedestrian and bicyclist factors that applies to all 

intersection types, known as the Design Flag Assessment. The guide presents a system of 20 flags for identifying 

individual design features at alternative intersections that affect safety, comfort, and movement complexity for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. A particular flag can be assigned to an intersection design as either a red (direct safety 

concern) or yellow (user comfort concern) flag. Some flags apply only to bicyclists, some only to pedestrians, and 

some apply to both groups. 
15

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Applying the principles described in this guide, intersections should be designed to account for how people currently move through the broad planning area. 

The planning and design process includes collecting information about people who live and work in the planning area to better define the characteristics of the 

expected users of the intersection. This information, along with consideration for the appropriate operating speed of the approaching roadways, helps identify 

the types of bikeways and pedestrian pathways that best serve all users and fit the changing roadway and context. Figure 4 presents some of the questions 

planners and designers might be asking as they begin planning an intersection project.

Figure 4. Early considerations for intersection projects. Source: FHWA.
16

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

The planners and designers further consider how the desired bikeway and pedestrian pathway networks would connect through the intersections and where 

risk is highest for fatal and serious injury bicycle or pedestrian crashes. The planners and designers also consider the routes connecting people to destinations 

near the intersection and the overall travel time to cross the intersection. While all roadway users benefit from direct routes and minimal travel times between 

destinations across the intersection, it is reasonable to conclude that non-motorized users benefit even more than motorized users because they are operating 

under human power. Figure 5 shows some of the questions the planners and designers might be exploring during this stage of the planning and design process.

Figure 5. Considerations for designing the pedestrian and bicyclist network at intersections. Source: FHWA.
17

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

PART II. DESIGNS FOR INTERSECTION TYPES

An intersection design process consistent with the principles in Part 1 uses facility selection and intersection analysis 

tools that consider the needs of bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. This process leads to several 

desired outcomes for intersection design. The planners and designers review context and site-specific conditions to 

make final design decisions for intersections. 

The following elements should be considered for all intersections:

» Include pedestrian and bicycle crossings on all legs, at conspicuous locations with clear sightlines, 

such as perpendicular crossings.

» Mark stop lines or advance yield lines in advance of marked crosswalks. 

» Evaluate on-street parking and driveway access in the immediate vicinity of intersections and 

determine if restrictions would be beneficial for pedestrian and bicycle facilities, particularly for 

mutual sight distance and visibility. 

» Provide lighting at all crossings and along bikeways and pathways inside the 

intersection influence area.

» Indicate transitions with clear markings and signage in advance of and shorten 

mixing zones with bike lanes. 

» Extend bike lanes into the functional area of the intersection to the left of right-turn only lanes. 

» Regularly trim vegetation to maintain visibility of pedestrian and bicyclist crossings at intersections. 

» Minimize intersection skew and install crosswalks along the shortest path across each crossing stage. 

» Construct curb ramps with landings and detectable warnings at all corners of the intersection where 

sidewalks are present or planned. When curb ramps and landings are constructed, they must be 

compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements (incorporated by reference into 

28 CFR 35.151(i)).(44)(45)

» If a traffic control signal or a PHB is used, include APS to inform pedestrians with low or no vision 

that the WALK signal is on. If pedestrian activated warning devices such as RRFBs or other warning 

beacons are used, install Audible Information Devices (AIDs) to inform pedestrians with low or no 

vision that the warning device is flashing.

» Surpass prescribed accessibility requirements by further minimizing grades and cross slopes 

and placing push buttons in consistent locations that are easy to locate and access.

» Design intersections and interchange ramps to meet at as close to a perpendicular angle 

as practical for the intersection design. 

» Implement geometric design and physical features that limits motor vehicle turning 

movement speed to 20 mph.(46,47,48)

» Install conspicuity enhancements, such as RRFBs, and minimize turn radii and lane widths for 

uncontrolled and channelized approaches to pedestrian and bicycle crossings. 
18

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

The following elements should be considered for intersections in areas with high bicycle or pedestrian demand: 

» Implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) at all signalized pedestrian crossings where turning 

vehicles are permitted during the WALK phase. The use of APS should also be considered when 

implementing LPI to address the needs of pedestrians with low or no vision.

» Maintain temporal separation through intersections using bicycle signals and protected 

WALK phases as appropriate. 

» Maintain spatial separation through intersections using geometric features, such as raised islands 

and curb extensions.

» Implement No Right on Red restrictions at signalized intersections. 

» Install raised crosswalks and/or RRFBs at uncontrolled approaches.

» Implement pedestrian-actuated traffic controls, such as PHBs or pedestrian signals, at multilane 

approaches to bicycle or pedestrian crossings (including channelized dual left-turn or right-turns).

» Where median refuge is provided for people crossing wide or complex intersections, include storage 

space for groups, pedestrians with strollers, or bicyclists with trailers, and push buttons placed 

accordingly.(25) 

» Provide a longer or extended WALK phase to allow approaching and slower moving pedestrians and 

bicyclists to cross intersection in a single stage. 

» Implement signal phases that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross in one stage. Place push 

buttons in the median for multistage crossings.(25)

Intersection Types and Design Concepts

This section illustrates how pedestrian and bicyclist facilities can be incorporated into different intersection designs, 

including stop-controlled intersections, traditional signalized intersections, roundabouts, Median U-Turn (MUT) 

intersections, Reduced Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections, Quadrant Roadway (QR) intersections, Displaced Left 

Turn (DLT) intersections, and Diverging Diamond Interchanges (DDI). Each intersection type is featured in multiple 

design options – one option per page, each integrating a different type of bikeway and pathway. Figure 6 shows 

an example of an intersection cut sheet with a legend to identify key features. Some intersection types, such as the 

RCUT, have additional versions to show interactions between different vehicular routes and bikeway or pedestrian 

routes. The traditional, roundabout, and DDI alternatives include options for bike lanes (not vertically separated from 

motor vehicle traffic). The QR intersection can be adapted to include a bike lane configuration similar to the traditional 

intersection. The RCUT, MUT, and DLT show separated bikeway routes because physical separation from motor 

vehicle traffic is recommended due to typical traffic volumes, speeds, and complexity of the traffic operations.

Each intersection type is described by a table listing typical conditions that may pose challenges or opportunities 

for pedestrians and bicyclists navigating the intersection. The table also includes information from the analysis tools 

introduced in Part 1 that further explain these challenges or opportunities. The analysis informs the overall selection 

of intersection types for sites, and the analysis identifies need for additional design features to be considered for 

bicyclists and pedestrians at the intersection. 
19

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 6. Intersection design cut sheet key. Source: FHWA.
20

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Stop-Controlled Intersections 

Conventional intersections where one or more approaches are controlled by a STOP sign are generally categorized as

stop-controlled intersections. However, there are significant differences between multi-way stop control (typically allway) and minor road stop control (major road uncontrolled). The respective descriptions that follow address the more 

typical scenarios of all-way stop (AWS) and minor road stop (MRS).

AWS intersections feature STOP signs controlling all approaches. AWS intersections are used in a wide range of conditions, 

from low volume, low speed local roads to high speed rural highways. Because stopping is mandatory for all movements, 

vehicle speeds are typically lower and opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross should be frequent. Generally, AWS intersections tend to have 

relatively compact footprints, although additional through lanes or turn lanes add complexity to the intersection and increase crossing distances. 

MRS intersections feature STOP signs controlling the minor road approach(es), while the major road approaches are uncontrolled. Crossing the uncontrolled 

approaches of a MRS intersection involves a higher risk to pedestrians and bicyclists because of the free-flow and higher-speed traffic conditions. Additionally, 

opportunities to cross may be less frequent, or even infrequent, due to the need to wait for a gap in major road traffic. 

There are opportunities to enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings at both AWS and MRS intersections. Creating space within the intersection functional 

area that makes pedestrians and bicyclists more visible and conspicuous supports improved driver awareness and yielding, and makes the intersection safer 

and more usable for people walking and bicycling. High-visibility crosswalks and effective intersection lighting are two treatments that can be implemented 

routinely. Other treatments that should be considered and implemented as often as possible include wide refuge islands (especially where crossings involve 

more than two lanes of traffic), separated bikeways with channelization at the intersection, and raised crosswalks (for MRS intersections) or tabled intersections 

(for AWS intersections). Stop-controlled intersections that involve multilane approaches or more complex arrangements of through lanes and turn lanes should 

also be evaluated for treatments such as RRFB or PHB, as appropriate. Table 2 describes typical conditions and evaluation techniques that correspond to 

challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at AWS and MRS intersections. 

Table 2. Assessment considerations for conditions at Stop-Controlled intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Uncontrolled crossings; 

Multilane crossings

For pedestrians and bicyclists, risk of crash harm is higher and 

convenience and comfort are lower, at uncontrolled or multilane 

crossings, especially along higher speed or rural roads. 

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “yieldor uncontrolled vehicle paths” and a flag for “multilane

crossings” emphasizing consideration at multi-threat or

high-speed crossings.

Crossing 

distance

Stop-controlled intersections with multiple through or turn lanes 

can lead to longer pedestrian and bicyclist crossing distances and 

greater exposure to traffic. Certain road users may need extended 

time to cross longer distances, further increasing exposure and 

stress for the user.

» The SSI method considers the number of through

lanes crossed as a concern for pedestrian and bicyclist

exposure.

» Travel time data collection can be used to identify

locations with long crossing distances.

Visibility of pathway 

and bikeway crossings

The mutual visibility among pedestrians, bicyclists and motor 

vehicle drivers is essential for effective yielding and stopping 

behaviors. Further, the need to identify and act upon gaps in traffic 

for uncontrolled crossings or alternating stop-and-go for controlled 

crossings makes sight distance and view angles critical. 

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “Sight

Distance for Gap Acceptance Movements”
21

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Where pedestrians cross 

minor street stop-controlled 

or uncontrolled approaches 

as shown in figure 7, marked 

crosswalks align with 

sidewalk or shared use path 

approaches. Multi-lane, 

uncontrolled pedestrian 

crossings should include 

additional countermeasures 

(16). Traffic control devices, 

such as the Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacon (PHB) shown in figure 

7, should be considered 

for higher speed and traffic 

volume crossings. Bicyclists 

travelling along major 

roadways may travel along 

and cross minor street stopcontrolled approaches at 

separated, shared use path 

crossings. In rural contexts, 

bicyclists may travel along 

and cross minor and major 

roadways in the road, in bike 

lanes, or as a pedestrian at 

the crosswalk. 

Minor Road Stop

(MRS)

Sidepath

Figure 7. MRS intersection with 

sidepath. Source: FHWA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
22

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

 

 

 

At all-way stop intersections 

as shown in figure 8, 

pedestrians cross at marked 

crosswalks that align with 

the sidewalk and stop 

lines are set closely to the 

crosswalk. Bike lanes may 

merge with the vehicle travel 

path at raised intersections 

as shown in figure 8, or bike 

lanes may continue through 

the intersection using green 

colored pavement to give 

space to bicyclists and 

enhance visibility. Where 

there are no bike lanes at 

the intersection or at typical 

stop-controlled intersections 

in rural areas, bicyclists may 

merge into turn lanes in 

advance of the intersection to 

navigate left-turns. 

All Way Stop (AWS)

Bike Lane

Figure 8. AWS intersection with bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

 

 

 

 
23

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Traditional Signalized Intersection

Traditional intersections are the most common traffic signal-controlled intersection type.(7) Turn lanes increase the complexity 

and timing of the signal phasing and cycle lengths, and intersections with multiple through lanes and turn lanes increase 

crossing distance and exposure for pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 3 describes analysis findings and typical conditions 

that present challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at traditional 

signalized intersections.

Table 3. Assessment considerations for conditions at traditional signalized intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Crossing 

distance

With added turn lanes, traditional intersections can lead to 

longer crossing distances without refuge for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. Pedestrians that are older, disabled, or children 

may need extended time to cross long distances, increasing 

exposure and stress for the user. 

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “multilane crossings.”

» The SSI method considers the number of through lanes crossed as a 

concern for pedestrian and bicyclist exposure.

» Travel time data collection can be used to identify locations with long 

crossing distances.

Direct turning 

movements

Direct turning movements are those that are permitted to 

occur at the main intersection, as opposed to indirect turning 

movements that may require U-turns or other combinations 

of movements. Direct turning movements improve mobility 

for motor vehicles, but they increase the number of conflict 

points at the main intersection for motorists, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians. Increasing the number of turning movements 

may also lead to increased traffic signal cycle lengths and 

complexity and delay for pedestrians and bicyclists

» The Design Flag Assessment includes flags for “motor vehicle rightturn” and “motor vehicle left-turn.” It also includes a flag for “long red 

times,” which may be triggered through adding phases for direct turning 

movements.

» The SSI method accounts for severity of different conflict points 

depending on vehicle speed.

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess added pedestrian and 

bicyclist delay due to phasing for direct turning movements.

Channelized 

right-turns

Channelizing islands that accompany channelized right-turns 

can provide refuge for pedestrians but may also encourage 

higher motor vehicle turning speeds. If a channelized rightturn is uncontrolled (or free-flow), this can be problematic for 

pedestrians with disabilities.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “crossing yield or 

uncontrolled vehicle paths” that may apply to channelized turns as well as 

a bicyclist-only flag for “channelized lanes.”

Signal timing

Depending on signal phasing, left-turns may conflict with 

bicyclist and pedestrian movements. Long signal cycles with 

many phases may increase pedestrian and bicyclist delay.

» The SSI method accounts for left-turn phasing for motor vehicles 

(permitted, protected/permitted, or protected).

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess pedestrian and bicyclist 

delay due to traffic signal timing changes.

Driveways

Nearby driveways can introduce additional complexity and 

conflict points.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “intersection driveways 

and side streets” to account for driveways within the intersection influence 

area.

» The SSI method can be modified to account for additional conflict points 

resulting from nearby driveways.

General Signal coordination or steady traffic volumes may 

decrease natural gaps in traffic at midblock crossings. 

» The HCM and simple traffic volume studies may be a tool to assess gaps 

in traffic flow, describing added pedestrian and bicyclist delay. 
24

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 9. Traditional signalized 

intersection with bike lanes. 

Source: FHWA.

Traditional intersections provide 

direct access for all turning 

movements and are the most 

common intersection design 

found throughout the United 

States. This design, shown in 

figure 9, incorporates bike lanes 

with green colored pavement to 

emphasize continuity through 

the intersection, as well as 

two-stage left-turn boxes to 

allow cyclists to make left-turns 

without merging across lanes of 

through-moving vehicle traffic. 

Pedestrian facilities include 

sidewalks on both sides of all 

four legs, marked crosswalks, 

and pedestrian refuge islands 

on two legs. Pedestrian refuge 

islands simplify the pedestrian 

crossing by reducing the number 

of lanes crossed in one stage. 

Traffic signal phasing plans will 

depend on the traffic volumes, 

sight distance, and context of the 

intersection.

Traditional

Signalized

Bike Lane

 

 

Cr 

 

to pr 

comfor 

convenient cr 

experience for the 

expected v 

type of users.

 
25

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 10. Traditional signalized 

intersection with separated bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

This traditional intersection 

design, shown in figure 10, 

features bike lanes that 

are separated from motor 

vehicle traffic vertically 

and horizontally along the 

intersection legs. The oneway, separated bike lanes 

cross through the intersection 

following the routes 

designated by green colored 

pavement. Pedestrians 

travel on sidewalks that are 

separated from the bike 

lanes and cross through 

the intersection at marked 

crosswalks. In this design, 

it is important to consider 

the interactions between 

pedestrians and bicyclists 

at the corners and at 

medians where people may 

wait in groups to cross the 

intersection.

Traditional 

Signalized

Separated Bike Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
26

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

This traditional intersection 

design, shown in figure 11, 

features sidepaths. Bike lanes 

are shown here with ramps 

to allow cyclists access to 

the sidepath upstream of the 

intersection and return them 

to the bike lane downstream 

of the intersection. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists 

use the marked crosswalks 

and refuge islands to cross 

through the intersection. 

Using a shared facility through 

the intersection consolidates 

conflict points between 

motor vehicles, bicyclists, and 

pedestrians. This design leads 

to increased conflicts between 

pedestrians and bicyclists, 

especially at the corners of the 

intersection, and may be more 

difficult for pedestrians with 

disabilities to navigate. It is 

important to design the width 

of shared paths, crosswalks, 

medians, and queuing areas 

to accommodate groups of 

people of all abilities. Shared 

facilities may be appropriate 

even where only low volumes 

of bicyclists and pedestrians 

are expected to use the 

intersection under present 

and future conditions.

Traditional 

Signalized

Sidepath

Figure 11. Traditional signalized 

intersection with sidepaths. 

Source: FHWA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and type of users.

 
27

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Roundabout

A roundabout is a circular intersection characterized by channelized approaches and counterclockwise traffic flow around a 

center island.(8) Traffic approaching the roundabout yields to traffic already in the circular roadway. Roundabouts are highly 

adaptable and have been proven to work across a range of contexts, from high-speed rural to low-speed urban. Roundabouts 

can offer several benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists, including allowing pedestrians to cross one direction of vehicular 

traffic at a time, reducing vehicular speeds through the intersection to 15-25 mph, and potentially reducing the total number 

of lanes to cross at the intersection because of improved operational performance. Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts 

can present challenges for pedestrians who have low or no vision because the crossings are located off to the side of the 

intersection, instead of in-line with the approach sidewalk. However, there are solutions that can be applied to make these crossings accessible for all users.

(28) A continuous, detectable edge treatment between the sidewalk and vehicle or bike lanes is needed to provide an underfoot cue for pedestrians with low 

or no vision at locations where pedestrian crossing is not intended. This may be vegetative separation or another continuous, detectable edge treatment. 

Detectable warning surfaces should not be used for edge treatment.(30) Table 4 describes analysis findings and typical conditions that present challenges or 

opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at roundabouts.

Table 4. Assessment considerations for conditions at roundabouts.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Roundabout geometry

Modern roundabout geometry encourages slower motor vehicle 

approach speeds. However, the intersection footprint and 

placement of crosswalks may lengthen the travel distance for 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

» The SSI method accounts for the slower motor 

vehicle speeds entering, circulating, and exiting 

the intersection as compared to other intersection 

designs. The SSI method also applies an “indirect 

paths” adjustment to account for the footprint and 

placement of crosswalks.

Splitter islands

Splitter islands provide pedestrian refuge. » The SSI method accounts for the splitter islands 

inherent in modern roundabout design. It factors them 

in as refuge islands that decrease pedestrian and 

bicyclist movement complexity.

Bicyclist acceleration

Bicyclists riding in mixed traffic entering the roundabout are slower 

to accelerate from a stop than motor vehicles.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for 

“riding in mixed traffic.” 

» Gap acceptance studies may help to understand 

issues surrounding bicyclists entering the roundabout. 

Driver yielding

Entries at roundabouts are yield-controlled and exits are 

uncontrolled. Consequently, pedestrian and bicycle crossings at 

both entries and exits must be carefully assessed to maximize the 

conditions for yielding. This is particularly important for making 

crossings accessible to pedestrians with vision loss.(28)

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for 

“multilane crossings” that considers the number of 

lanes crossed.
28

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 12. Roundabout with bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

This single-lane roundabout 

design, shown in figure 12, 

features sidewalks with 

crosswalks for pedestrians 

and bike lanes for bicyclists. 

The crosswalks are 

perpendicular to the motor 

vehicle traffic that is diverted 

by the geometry of the 

roundabout circular roadway 

and splitter islands. The bike 

lanes end shortly upstream 

of the roundabout entry, and 

bicyclists merge with motor 

vehicle traffic to navigate 

the intersection before 

returning to the bike lane after 

exiting (as indicated by the 

shared lane markings on the 

intersection legs). Another 

option would be to provide a 

ramp from the bike lane onto 

a sidepath in advance of the 

roundabout and another ramp 

from the sidepath to the bike 

lane following the roundabout, 

similar to the design shown in 

figure 14. While roundabout 

geometry produces lower 

motorist speeds, bicyclists 

typically cannot accelerate 

at the same rates as motor 

vehicles. Riding in mixed 

traffic adds some complexity 

to the task of biking through 

a roundabout and may not be 

comfortable for bicyclists of all 

ages and abilities.

Roundabout

Shared Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
29

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 13. Roundabout with 

separated bike lanes. 

Source: FHWA.

This single-lane roundabout 

design, shown in figure 13, 

features separated bike lanes 

with bicyclist crossings parallel 

to the marked pedestrian 

crosswalks. This consolidates 

pedestrian and bicyclist activity 

to the same areas, improves 

driver visibility of crossing 

pedestrians and bicyclists, 

and minimizes conflict points 

between pedestrians and 

bicyclists. The interface between 

the separated bike lanes, 

bicycle crossings (marked here 

with green colored pavement), 

and pedestrian crosswalks 

are designed to provide 

enough room for bicyclists 

and pedestrians to maneuver 

separately. The use of splitter 

islands on all approaches in 

the modern roundabout design 

provides refuge islands for both 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

Roundabout

Separated Bike Lane

Crossing islands 

should be wide 

enough to 

provide a safe, 

comfortable, 

and convenient 

crossing 

experience for 

the expected 

volume and type 

of users.

 

 

 

 

 
30

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 14. Roundabout with 

sidepaths. Source: FHWA.

This multilane roundabout design, 

shown in figure 14, transitions 

bike lanes to sidepaths upstream 

of the roundabout entrance. For 

most bicyclists, this provides the 

option for a more comfortable 

path across the intersection 

but increases conflicts with 

pedestrians. Shared facilities 

may be appropriate even where 

only low volumes of bicyclists 

and pedestrians are expected 

to use the intersection under 

present and future conditions 

The multilane design increases 

crossing distances over the 

single-lane design. Bicyclists 

have the option to transition from 

the bike lane to the sidepath 

or merge with motor vehicle 

traffic to continue through the 

roundabout. This design also 

includes raised crosswalks and 

PHBs across the entering and 

exiting lanes of the roundabout. 

These are features that can be 

added to lower vehicle speeds 

and improve driver yielding 

behavior. The splitter islands 

here are shown in green to 

indicate landscaping. This is an 

important detail as landscaping, 

as opposed to paving, areas like 

medians and splitter islands can 

aid pedestrians with vision loss 

in aligning and staying on the 

intended path.

Roundabout

Sidepath

 

enough to provide a safe, comfortable, 

and convenient crossing experience for 

the expected volume and type of users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
31

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Median U-Turn (MUT) Intersection

Median U-Turn (MUT) intersections replace direct left-turns at an intersection with indirect left-turns that rely on a U-turn/rightturn combination, while still allowing through movements along each intersecting roadway.(9) The MUT reduces the overall 

number of vehicular conflict points and presents all users with fewer conflicting movements to cross at a time. The main 

intersection is signalized but requires fewer traffic signal phases than a traditional intersection due to the elimination of direct 

left-turns. MUT intersections offer several benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists, such as shorter crossing distances, reduced 

conflict points, shorter cycle lengths and less delay, and an opportunity to increase connectivity when controlled midblock 

crossings are incorporated with downstream U-turn intersections. Table 5 describes analysis findings and typical conditions 

that present challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at MUT intersections.

Table 5. Assessment considerations for conditions at MUT intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Median and footprint

The median provides refuge, but the larger footprint may increase 

overall crossing distance.

» The SSI method accounts for the refuge that the 

medians provide to pedestrians and bicyclists through 

a movement complexity adjustment.

Major road bicyclist 

left-turn movements

Unless the intersection design provides bike boxes or other 

features to specifically provide for bicyclist left-turns, bicyclists 

riding with traffic make left-turn movements at the U-turn median 

openings. This route option requires bicyclists to travel in and 

merge across lanes of motor vehicle traffic along the major 

roadway.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes flags for 

“indirect paths” and “executing unusual movements,” 

as well as a bicyclist-only flag for “lane change across 

motor vehicle lanes.”

U-turn intersections

U-turn median openings provide opportunity for controlled 

midblock pedestrian crossing, introducing additional conflict points 

but also improving pedestrian and bicycle mobility.

» The SSI method could be used to capture additional 

conflict points due to the introduction of midblock 

crossings at the U-turn cut-throughs.
32

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 15. MUT with separated bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

The MUT intersection design redirects all left-turns at the intersection to U-turn cut-throughs downstream of the main intersection. 

From a pedestrian and bicyclist standpoint, MUTs operate similarly to traditional intersections but typically feature longer crossing 

distances due to the wide median necessary for the U-turns. However, this added space does provide the opportunity for pedestrian 

and bicyclist refuge and the U-turns are opportunities to provide additional crossing locations. Traffic signals should be timed for singlestage crossings by both pedestrians and bicyclists, but with actuation buttons placed in the medians to allow for two-stage crossings or 

WALK phase extension when needed by some pedestrians. The design shown in figure 15 features separated bike lanes parallel to the 

sidewalks and marked crosswalks through the intersection.

Median U-Turn 

(MUT)

Separated Bike 

Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crossing Island

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
33

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

The MUT design shown in figure 16 features sidepaths through the intersection for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. Bike 

lanes merge with the sidewalk by way of ramps upstream of the U-turn cut-throughs. Both bicyclists and pedestrians cross 

through the intersection using marked crosswalks. The design shows the bike ramps prior to the U-turn crossings, before 

sidepath crossings at the U-turn. Shared facilities may be appropriate even where only low volumes of bicyclists and 

pedestrians are expected to use the intersection under present and future conditions.

Median U-Turn 

(MUT)

Sidepath

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

roadways. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

placement 20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 16. MUT with sidepaths. 

Source: FHWA.
34

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 17. MUT with sidepaths and 

U-turn bulbs. Source: FHWA.

The MUT design shown in figure 17 features sidepaths. However, it also features U-turn bulbs, or “loons,” at the U-turn cut-throughs. 

The bulbs allow vehicles, especially larger trucks, to make U-turns while minimizing the necessary median width. The narrowed 

median width decreases the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing distance at the intersection. The sidepath follows the curve of the 

bulb, and changes in direction of travel are a design consideration for bicyclists or pedestrians with disabilities, but the separation 

between sidewalk or sidepath, usually landscaping of some kind, helps provide some contrast and non-visual guidance along and 

around the perimeter of the bulb-out.

Median U-Turn 

(MUT)

Sidepath Bulb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

roadways. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

placement 20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
35

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) Intersection

Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections replace direct through and left-turn movements from the minor approaches 

with an indirect movement of a right-turn/U-turn combination.(10) The RCUT reduces the overall number of vehicular conflict 

points and presents all users with fewer conflicting movements to cross at a time. An RCUT may be signalized or unsignalized. 

When signalized, fewer phases are needed as compared to a traditional signalized intersection, resulting in shorter overall 

cycle lengths. The features of an RCUT may provide benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists. Specifically, the reduced number 

of conflict points and fewer number of conflicting movements crossed at a time can reduce risk while crossing. Additionally, 

at signalized RCUT locations, shorter signal cycle lengths can result in less control delay, and signalized U-turns offer the opportunity for controlled midblock 

crossings, providing additional convenience. Table 6 describes analysis findings and typical conditions that present challenges or opportunities for improved 

safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at RCUT intersections.

Table 6. Assessment considerations for conditions at RCUT intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Z-pattern crossing

The typical Z-pattern crossing creates a less direct travel 

route. This pedestrian route may present wayfinding 

difficulties for users, especially those with disabilities.

» The SSI method accounts for the conflict points for the typical 

Z-pattern crossing, including the balance between decreasing the 

number of bicyclist and pedestrian conflict points while increasing 

exposure through those conflict points.

» The SSI method also accounts for out-of-the-way travel for 

pedestrians and bicyclists with an “indirect paths” complexity 

adjustment.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes flags for “indirect paths” 

and “executing unusual movements.”

Median and 

footprint

The median provides refuge, but the larger footprint may 

increase overall crossing distance.

» The SSI method accounts for the refuge that the medians provide 

to pedestrians and bicyclists through a movement complexity 

adjustment.

Signal cycle 

length

RCUTs are typically operated as two-phase signals, which can 

lead to shorter cycle lengths and decreased pedestrian and 

bicyclist delay.

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess added 

pedestrian and bicyclist delay due to two-phase signal operation.

Minor road 

bicyclist through 

and left-turn 

movements

Unless the intersection provides median openings and traffic 

control for direct crossings, bicyclists riding with traffic make 

left-turn movements at the U-turn median openings. This 

route option requires bicyclists to travel in and merge across 

lanes of motor vehicle traffic along the major roadway.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes flags for “indirect paths” 

and “executing unusual movements,” as well as a bicyclist-only 

flag for “lane change across motor vehicle lanes.”

U-turn 

intersections

U-turn median openings provide opportunity for controlled 

midblock pedestrian crossing, introducing additional conflict 

points but also improving pedestrian and bicycle mobility.

» The SSI method could be used to capture additional conflict 

points due to the introduction of midblock crossings at the U-turn 

cut-throughs.
36

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 18. RCUT with Z-crossing and 

sidepaths. Source: FHWA.

The RCUT is similar to the MUT but instead of redirecting left-turns from all approaches, it redirects both left-turns and 

through movements from only the minor approaches. Like the MUT, the U-turns needed for the RCUT provide opportunities 

for increasing pedestrian and bicyclist mobility by introducing additional midblock crossing locations. The RCUT layout 

optimized for motor vehicles calls for a “Z-pattern” pedestrian crossing at the main intersection, as shown in figure 18. This 

reduces conflict points between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, but causes crossing pedestrians and bicyclists to 

travel out of their direct, intended path. Wayfinding signage and markings, APS, and carefully placed push buttons on corners 

and refuge islands, are strongly encouraged to mitigate the complex routes for pedestrians with disabilities.

Restricted Crossing 

U-Turn 

(RCUT)

Sidepath Z-Crossing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 advanced stop bar 

placement 20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
37

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 19. RCUT with separated bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

The RCUT design shown in figure 19 features separated bike lanes and a more direct and intuitive pedestrian and bicyclist 

crossing configuration at the intersection. In order to provide the needed traffic signal phases for pedestrians and bicyclists 

to cross, the left-turns cannot operate simultaneously with the bicyclist and pedestrian movements crossing the major road 

unless multi-stage crossings are used. This design also features high angle channelized right-turns, which provide refuge 

islands for pedestrians and bicyclists and encourage appropriate motor vehicle speeds, increased visibility, and driver 

yielding behavior.

Restricted Crossing 

U-Turn (RCUT)

Separated Bike Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

placement 20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
38

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 20. RCUT with sidepaths. 

Source: FHWA.

The RCUT design in figure 20 shows sidepaths that allow pedestrians and bicyclists to travel directly through the 

intersection. It also features the more traditional crosswalk positioning and high angle channelized right-turn lanes. The 

position of the channelizing islands facilitates staggered crosswalks, which can improve safety by angling pedestrians’ and 

cyclists’ field of view towards oncoming traffic but may also make maneuvering more difficult for cyclists and pedestrians 

using mobility assistance devices or with vision disabilities.

Restricted Crossing 

U-Turn (RCUT)

Sidepath

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

placement 20’-50’

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

High angle entry for channelized 

right-turn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
39

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 21. RCUT with sidepaths and 

U-turn bulbs. Source: FHWA.

The RCUT design shown in figure 21 features sidepaths. However, it also features U-turn bulbs, or “loons,” at the U-turn 

cut-throughs. The bulbs allow vehicles, especially larger trucks, to make U-turns while minimizing the necessary median 

width. The reduced median width decreases the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing distance at the intersection. The sidepath 

follows the curve of the bulb, and changes in direction of travel are a design consideration for bicyclists or pedestrians with 

disabilities, but the separation between sidewalk or sidepath, usually landscaping of some kind, helps provide some contrast 

and non-visual guidance along and around the perimeter of the bulb-out.

Restricted Crossing 

U-Turn (RCUT)

Sidepath Bulb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
40

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Quadrant Roadway (QR) Intersection

A quadrant roadway (QR) intersection is an intersection design with one main intersection and two secondary intersections 

where left-turns are displaced to a quarter-arc or ‘quadrant’ connector road.(11) No left-turns are made at the main intersection. 

Instead, vehicles turning left from any of the four approaches to the intersection use the secondary intersections and quadrant

connector road to complete the movement. Secondary intersections are normally signalized, which is preferable for pedestrian 

and bicyclist safety, though in some cases they may be unsignalized. Because there are no left-turns at the main intersection, 

there are no left-turn lanes, benefiting pedestrians and bicyclists through shorter crossing distances, shorter cycle lengths and 

wait times, and the elimination of left-turning conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Table 7 describes analysis findings and typical conditions that present 

challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at QR intersections.

Table 7. Assessment considerations for conditions at QR intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Crossing distance and 

conflict points

Removal of left-turn lanes at the main intersection decreases 

crossing distance and removes conflict points for pedestrians 

and bicyclists. However, the introduction of the two auxiliary 

intersections for the quadrant roadway introduces additional 

conflict points.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for 

“multilane crossings” that considers the number of 

lanes crossed.

» The SSI method captures the removal of conflict points 

at the main intersection and the addition of conflict 

points at the auxiliary intersections.

Speed management Depending on the surrounding context, it may be necessary to 

implement speed management measures on the quadrant roadway.

» The SSI method movement speed assumptions can be 

adjusted to account for conditions in the study area.

Signal timing

The main intersection is typically operated as a two-phase traffic 

signal, minimizing delay for pedestrians and bicyclists. The phasing 

of the auxiliary intersections depends on traffic volumes and 

patterns and the surrounding context.

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess 

added pedestrian and bicyclist delay due to two-phase 

signal operation.

Driveways

In some cases, the “infield” of the quadrant roadway may be 

developed. If so, driveways typically provide access to the 

destinations within. The introduction of driveways, in addition to 

the auxiliary intersections, can increase the number and density of 

pedestrian and bicyclist conflict points.

» The Design Flag Assessment has a flag for 

“intersection driveways and side streets.” It applies to 

driveways within 250 feet of the main intersection.

» The SSI method can be modified to account for 

additional conflict points resulting from nearby 

driveways.
41

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 22. Quadrant roadway 

intersection with separated bike 

lanes. Source: FHWA.

The quadrant roadway 

intersection diverts some 

motor vehicle movements to 

an auxiliary (or “quadrant”) 

roadway located in one of the 

quadrants of the intersection. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists can 

travel through the quadrant 

roadway intersection similar 

to a traditional intersection. 

The notable difference is 

that, depending on their 

origin and/or destination, 

they may choose to travel 

along the auxiliary roadway. 

The addition of two auxiliary 

intersections may increase 

the number of conflict points 

between motor vehicles, 

bicyclists, and pedestrians. 

The quadrant roadway design 

in figure 22 shows separated 

bike lanes and sidewalks 

along the major road, minor 

road, and auxiliary road. 

Quadrant Roadway 

(QR)

Separated Bike Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

convenient crossing 

experience for the expected 

volume and type of users.

Cr 
42

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 23. Quadrant 

roadway intersection with 

sidepaths. Source: FHWA.

The quadrant roadway design 

shown in figure 23 features 

bike lanes transitioning to 

sidepaths upstream of the 

intersections. The sidepaths 

continue along the auxiliary 

roadway. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists travel through 

the intersections using the 

marked crosswalks. 

Quadrant Roadway 

(QR)

Sidepath

 

 

be used to guide people 

with low or no vision to help 

them stay on a sidewalk or 

sidepath.

 

bike lane

 

street buffer

sidewalk/path

directional indicator

(optional)

ramp

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
43

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Displaced Left Turn (DLT) Intersection

A displaced left turn (DLT) intersection, sometimes referred to as a Continuous Flow Intersection (CFI), is a crossover-type 

design that can be applied to the signalized intersection of high-volume arterials—especially those characterized by heavy 

left-turn volumes that conflict with heavy opposing through volumes.(12) Left-turning vehicular traffic crosses over to the other 

side of opposing through traffic at signalized intersections upstream of the main arterial intersection, which allows through 

movements and left-turns to occur simultaneously at the main intersection. This intersection type requires pedestrians and 

bicyclists to cross in multiple stages, experience long cycle lengths, and navigate complex travel routes. Grade-separated 

crossings should also be considered for bicyclists and pedestrians for DLT and other continuous flow intersection types. Table 8 describes analysis findings 

and typical conditions that present challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort for pedestrians and bicyclists at DLT intersections.

Table 8. Assessment considerations for conditions at DLT intersections.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Crossing 

distance and 

refuge

Due to the rerouting of left-turns at DLTs, the crossing distance 

for pedestrians and bicyclists is typically longer than at other 

intersection designs. Most DLTs include channelizing features 

and medians to direct vehicle traffic. These also serve to 

provide refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, in 

some cases they are narrow and may feature traffic moving 

on either side at high speeds, resulting in an uncomfortable 

environment for pedestrians and bicyclists.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “uncomfortable/

tight walking environment.”

» The SSI method factors in the benefit of refuge islands throughout 

the DLT design in decreasing pedestrian and bicyclist movement 

complexity.

Nonintuitive 

Vehicle 

Movements

Since the DLT design features left-turn movement “crossing 

over” to the other side of the opposing through movement, 

a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing the intersection will cross 

vehicle streams traveling in alternating directions. This may 

not meet expectation for typical motor vehicle movements.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “nonintuitive motor 

vehicle movement.”

» The SSI method applies a nonintuitive motor vehicle movement 

complexity adjustment to the pedestrian and bicyclist conflict 

points.

Channelized 

right-turns

DLTs typically feature channelized right-turns. These can 

provide refuge for pedestrians but may also encourage 

higher motor vehicle turning speeds. If a channelized rightturn is uncontrolled (or free-flow), this can be problematic for 

pedestrians with disabilities.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “crossing yield or 

uncontrolled vehicle paths” that may apply to channelized turns as 

well as a bicyclist-only flag for “channelized lanes.”

» The SSI method considers the benefit of channelizing islands as 

refuge islands that decrease pedestrian and bicyclist movement 

complexity. The SSI method also accounts for out-of-the-way travel 

for pedestrians and bicyclists with an “indirect paths” complexity 

adjustment.

Signal timing

Because the DLT is designed primarily to minimize vehicular 

delay and promote “continuous flow,” it can lead to long cycle 

lengths with increased delay for pedestrians and bicyclists.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “long red times.”

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess added pedestrian 

and bicyclist delay due to two-phase signal operation.
44

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 24. DLT intersection 

with separated bike lanes. 

Source: FHWA.

The DLT intersection design is used in situations of high vehicle volumes. Due to the lane arrangements, the DLT produces 

long crossing distances for pedestrians and bicyclists, increasing delay and conflict points with motor vehicles. DLT designs 

make use of channelizing features to direct motor vehicle traffic. Pedestrians and bicyclists may make use of the channelizing 

islands for refuge, diverting the bike lanes and sidewalks from the most direct paths. Channelizing islands should be 

designed to provide adequate queueing area and refuge from motor vehicle traffic, especially for bicycles, wheelchairs, and 

other similar devices. The DLT design in figure 24 shows separated bike lanes alongside sidewalks.

Displaced Left Turn 

(DLT)

Separated Bike Lane

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crossing Island
45

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 25. DLT intersection with 

sidepaths. Source: FHWA.

The DLT design shown in figure 25 uses upstream ramps to bring bicyclists out of the bike lane and up to a sidepath at 

sidewalk level. Both pedestrians and bicyclists then use this sidepath to travel through the intersection. Downstream of the 

intersection the bicyclists diverge to the bike lane using a similar ramp.

Displaced Left Turn 

(DLT)

Sidepath

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

type of users.

 
46

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Diverging Diamond Interchange (DDI)

A diverging diamond interchange (DDI) is characterized by crossover intersections at the ramp termini where cross-street 

traffic crosses over to the left-hand side of the roadway between the ramps to allow unopposed left-turns to and from the 

ramps.(13) The DDI can offer several benefits to pedestrians and bicyclists, such as reduced wait time through two-phase traffic 

signals and shorter signal cycle lengths; shorter overall crossing distances; and crossings of fewer conflicting movements 

and directions of traffic at a time. 

Between the crossover intersections, pedestrian pathways and separated bikeways are integrated as inside facilities (i.e., within the median and including 

barrier walls) or outside facilities (i.e., beyond the outside edges of pavement). Barrier walls height should not produce an enclosed “tunnel effect” that 

reduces visibility at the crossings. Distance between walls and the pathways and bikeways should be wide enough to allow for landscaping and debris to not 

block the route. Table 9 describes analysis findings and typical conditions that present challenges or opportunities for improved safety, access, and comfort 

for pedestrians and bicyclists at DDIs.

Table 9. Assessment considerations for conditions at DDIs.

Condition Description Assessment Technique

Crossing 

distance and 

refuge

Because DDIs are interchanges, they typically feature higher 

volume, multilane roads. Combined with the large medians 

and channelizing islands typically present, this results in long 

crossing distances for pedestrians and bicyclists.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “multilane crossing.”

» The SSI method considers the number of conflicting lanes and their 

impact on movement complexity for nonmotorized users. It also factors 

in the benefit of refuge islands throughout the DDI design in decreasing 

movement complexity.

Nonintuitive 

Vehicle 

Movements

Since the DDI design features motor vehicle movements 

“crossing over” to the other side of the roadway, a 

pedestrian or bicyclist crossing the intersection will 

cross vehicle streams traveling in atypical or unexpected 

directions.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “nonintuitive motor 

vehicle movement.”

» The SSI method applies a nonintuitive motor vehicle movement 

complexity adjustment to the pedestrian and bicyclist conflict points.

Channelized 

right-turns

DDIs typically feature channelized left and right-turns. 

These can provide refuge for pedestrians but may also 

encourage higher motor vehicle turning speeds. If a 

channelized right-turn is uncontrolled (or free-flow), this 

can be problematic for pedestrians with disabilities.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “crossing yield or 

uncontrolled vehicle paths” that may apply to channelized turns 

as well as a bicyclist-only flag for “channelized lanes.”

» The SSI method considers the benefit of channelizing islands as refuge 

islands that decrease pedestrian and bicyclist movement complexity. 

Pedestrian 

and bicyclist 

routing

Due to the size of the interchange footprint and other 

constraints, the designs typically require pedestrians and 

bicyclists to travel indirect routes. Additionally, routing 

pedestrians and bicyclists down the center of the road may 

be uncomfortable.

» The Design Flag Assessment includes a flag for “executing unusual 

movement” and “uncomfortable/tight walking environment.”

» The SSI method accounts for out-of-the-way travel for pedestrians and 

bicyclists with an indirect paths complexity adjustment.

Signal timing

The crossover intersections are typically operated as twophase traffic signals, minimizing delay for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. 

» HCM delay data collection can be used to assess added pedestrian 

and bicyclist delay due to two-phase signal operation.
47

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 26. DDI with 

separated bike lanes 

and outer sidewalks. 

Source: FHWA.

The DDI is different from the other intersection designs discussed here in that it is used in situations with grade-separated 

interchanges. It involves motor vehicle traffic crossing over to the opposite side of the roadway for a segment before 

crossing back. The DDI design in figure 26 shows separated bike lanes that follow the motor vehicle path, crossing over to 

the opposite side of the road on one edge of the interchange and crossing back at the other. This arrangement may allow for 

bicyclists to take cues for wayfinding from motorists and can allow for signage to be consistent between motor vehicles and 

bicyclists. It can also provide advantages for efficient use of available space.

Diverging Diamond 

Interchange (DDI)

Separated Bike Lane 

(outer)

 

 

 

 

 

posts to prevent vehicle 

encroachment in bike 

lane.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Raised crossings encourage 

drivers to yield and provide 

pedestrians and bicyclists with 

a continuous accessible path of 

travel without grade changes.

 

vertical delineator

 

buffer

 
48

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 27. DDI with separated 

bike lanes and inner sidewalks. 

Source: FHWA.

The DDI design shown in figure 27 makes use of separated bike lanes and sidewalks that cross the 

roadway and travel down the center of the median. This can be helpful in minimizing the needed right-ofway. Additionally, crossing to the middle of the road can make use of signal control to provide safe gaps for 

pedestrians and bicyclists.

Diverging Diamond Interchange 

(DDI) Separated Bike Lane (inner)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

volume and type of 

users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
49

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Figure 28. DDI with sidepaths. 

Source: FHWA.

The DDI design in figure 28 incorporates sidepaths that travel along the outer edge of the interchange footprint. Pedestrians 

and bicyclists cross over several entrance and exit ramps to navigate through the intersection. If these ramps are not signalcontrolled, they may lead to issues with driver yielding and pedestrians and bicyclists may have difficulty finding adequate 

gaps in traffic.

Diverging Diamond 

Interchange (DDI)

Sidepath

 

 

 

 

 

and type of users.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
50

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Additional Intersection Design Considerations

There are several circumstances where site conditions are constrained or where design flexibility or enhanced approaches are considered for improved 

crossings. The following are additional considerations for intersection projects, including design responses that can help improve safety, comfort, and 

operations for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Right-Turn Crossings

Right-turn conflicts with bicyclists and pedestrians at the intersection occur where motor vehicle travel is free-flowing or not under signal control at crossings, 

bike lane mixing zones, or where bicyclists are approaching on the right-hand side of the roadway. Interchange ramp approaches designed at a perpendicular 

angle or close to perpendicular can mitigate the speeds at intersecting exit ramps. As shown in figure 29, as the approach skew angle increases, drivers’ 

approach at higher speeds and the crossing distance is longer. 

Common Exit Ramp Approach Angles

30° 60° 90°

Figure 29. Ramp alignments at intersections with bicyclists and pedestrians. Preferred alignment is the 90 degree or perpendicular approach. 

Source: FHWA.

Uncontrolled single right-turn approaches are improved with minimal curb radii. Setting the turn radius at the corner based on the selected design vehicle can 

reduce turning speeds.(54) The curb radii should be designed based on the largest vehicle that turns with frequency at the intersection.(25) The Simple corner 

approach, as shown in figure 30, is a minimum turn radius based on the smallest design vehicle. A mountable curb and concrete truck apron is an option if a 

design vehicle includes large trucks, otherwise restrict truck turns where other viable truck routes exist. 
51

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Channelizing or separating the uncontrolled right-turn movement is the least preferred option for intersections including pedestrians and bicyclists. Visibility 

enhancements at crossings, such as the RRFB or raised crossings, should be considered where the right-turn lane is channelized. Raised crosswalks and raised 

intersections are considered at more urban locations with heavy pedestrian or with separated bicycle traffic. The channelization island should be designed 

with sufficient width and storage space to provide comfortable refuge for crossing pedestrians and bicyclists. Where sight distance is poor or where turning 

vehicle speeds are high, place the crosswalk at the center of the island or perpendicular to the channelized turn lane approach, and consider signalizing the 

crossing from the island.(49)

Simple corner Truck Apron Right-Turn Lane

High-Angle Entry

Channelized Right-Turn Lane

Figure 30. Right-Turn Approaches. Source: FHWA.

Dual right-turn lanes present additional safety concerns for bicyclists and pedestrians, creating a multi-threat (multilane) crossing condition and facilitating 

higher speed movements. To increase visibility and reduce crashes with the pedestrian or bicyclist at multilane crossings during the WALK phase, designers 

can place the crossing under full signal or PHB control. When channelized right-turns are signalized, they may create multistage crossings that can increase 

delay to pedestrian and bicycle travel through the intersection.

Restrictions on Right Turn on Red (or No Turn on Red) should be considered for all intersections incorporating separated bike lanes or other two-way bikeways, 

LPI and exclusive pedestrian or bicycle phases, or at RCUTs when right-turns are under signal control. No Turn on Red can be implemented through static 

signage or light-emitting diode (LED) blank out signs. No Turn on Red may also be appropriate for intersections with higher pedestrian or bicyclist activity, or 

where sight distance is limited and drivers frequently block the crosswalk to look for a gap in traffic.(49)
52

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Bike Lane Transitions 

Figure 31 shows some examples of different methods for transitioning bike facilities. Bike ramps are one option for transitions between bike lanes and 

separated bikeways. Bike ramps allow the bicyclist to transition between bike lanes and vertically separated facilities through or around the intersection.

In-Street or Raised 

Bike Lane to Protected 

Intersection

Raised Bike Lane 

to Street Level

Raised Bike Lane to 

Street Level with Bike 

Lane Extensions

Protected Bike Lane 

with Right-Turn Mixing 

Zone

In-Street or Raised 

Bike Lane to Sidewalk 

or Sidepath

Figure 31. Bikeway transitions at intersections. Source: FHWA.
53

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Green colored pavement is used to draw extra attention to bike lanes, especially near and through intersections, where turning vehicles and bicycles are more 

likely to mix. Green colored pavement helps differentiate bicyclist facilities where they cross or travel adjacent to pedestrian facilities. Green colored pavement 

can be used along an entire segment, or as a dashed spot treatment to call attention to potential conflict areas at intersections. Figure 32 shows different 

bikeway options and how they might incorporate green colored pavement at intersections.

Protected Intersection

Bike Lane

(Right Side of Travel Lane)

Pocket/Keyhole Bike Lane

(Left Side of Right-Turn Lane) Mixing Zone Shared Lane

Figure 32. Different bikeway options. Source: FHWA 

= Green 

colored 

pavement
54

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Signal Phasing and Timing

Exclusive bicycle and pedestrian phases allow all bicyclist and pedestrian movements to cross the intersection in any 

direction, while providing a red signal indication to all motor vehicle traffic. This is appropriate for urban settings with 

high pedestrian volumes and at intersections with high volumes of turning traffic. Signals can include bicycle-specific 

signal heads to control bicycle phases. Bike signal phases can permit bicyclists to run concurrent with vehicle phases 

or as an exclusive separate phase.

The intersection design should ensure audible cues are provided to persons with low or no vision. APS communicates 

the start and duration of the WALK phase to pedestrians with low or no vision through audible tones or speech messages 

and vibrating surfaces. The proposed Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) includes a provision that, 

if adopted, would require APS wherever pedestrian signals are installed. It refers to MUTCD standards for APS features 

and functioning (incorporated by reference into 23 CFR 655.601(d)(2)(i)).

Cycle length for a signalized intersection affects delay and travel time for all roadway users. Shorter signal cycles, 

creating pedestrian delay less than 60 seconds, improves likelihood of pedestrian compliance.(49) Short cycle lengths 

can also produce consistent gaps in traffic for downstream midblock pedestrian crossings.

Pedestrians with disabilities, children, or the elderly may not be able to completely cross the intersection before 

opposing traffic is released, depending on the duration of the walk interval and pedestrian change interval. The MUTCD 

stipulates that an average pedestrian walking speed of 3.5 ft/s should be used to determine the pedestrian clearance 

time. However, at locations where pedestrians who use mobility assistance devices or walk slower than 3.5 ft/s routinely 

use the crossing, the MUTCD suggests that practitioners consider a walking speed less than 3.5 ft/s (MUTCD Section 

4E.06, paragraph 10).(26)

Traffic signals may be designed with a leading pedestrian interval (LPI). LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter 

the crosswalk before vehicles are given a green indication.(36) This allows pedestrians to establish their presence in the 

crosswalk before vehicles begin to move through the intersection, increasing the visibility of pedestrians to drivers and 

improving driver behavior. For pedestrians with low or no vision to have access to the safety benefits of LPI, the use of 

APS should also be considered when implementing LPI.

Detection

The most common form of pedestrian detection is push button detection. Section 4E.08 of the MUTCD contains 

guidance on where to place pedestrian push buttons.(26) Proper push button placement assists in pedestrian 

navigation of the intersection and encourages compliance with pedestrian signals. Push buttons are placed with the 

face of the button parallel to the corresponding path of travel. 

Automated (or passive) detection systems are designed to sense or identify when a pedestrian or bicyclist has 

approached the crossing and then places a call for the appropriate traffic signal phase. The inclusion of advanced 

bicyclist detection can extend the green phase when necessary to allow bicyclists (who may be moving slower than 

motor vehicle traffic) to clear the intersection before the phase ends.

Consider automatic call (“pedestrian recall”) for all signals in areas with heavy pedestrian activity. Automatic recall 

eliminates the need for pushbutton or detection, is more convenient for pedestrians, and can improve safety by 

decreasing pedestrian crossings out-of-phase. 

Grade-Separated Crossings 

Grade-separated facilities, including overpasses and underpasses, separate bicyclists and pedestrians from motor 

vehicle traffic or in some cases, railcars. Grade-separated crossings are prioritized for high-speed and high vehiclevolume highways and intersections, railroad corridors, and natural barriers. Grade-separated crossings may be 

alternatives to the largest and most complex intersections described in this guide, such as the DLT. Some pedestrians 

and bicyclists may have personal safety concerns using grade-separated crossings when they are crossing under 

traffic, especially where the tunnels are long or are not well-lit. Other design considerations for grade-separated 

crossings include drainage and debris in tunnels, accessibility, and slope of routes to tunnels and bridges. 
55

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Intersections in Context

Planning and designing intersections for safe and comfortable travel for all roadway users begins by considering 

the approaching corridors. Traffic speed and volume are key determinants for identifying the user, and the preferred 

bikeway and pathway types for the context and users, according to the Bikeway Selection Guide.

(15)

 Speed and traffic 

volume also influence access to development, including the frequency of and design of driveways and intersections. 

The same principles that guide decisions for including bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections apply to corridors. 

Complete Streets policies and projects call for the planner and designer to expect pedestrians and bicyclists along 

all roadways. Land use context and needs of the users establish the cross section for the corridor, including bicycle 

and pedestrian networks, landscaping, and street amenities. 

The decision-maker should consider the target speeds for roadways leading to the intersection before determining the 

design speed for the intersection. As corridors or an area becomes more developed, levels of access to destinations 

change, traffic movements become more complex, and operating speeds adjust. These factors redefine the purpose 

of the roadway and inform target speeds, as bicycle and pedestrian exposure increases. 

Selecting and managing speeds along the corridor minimize the likelihood of fatal and serious injury crashes and 

support safer travel for bicyclists and pedestrians, in accordance with the Safe System approach. Safer design speeds 

along the corridor also support more frequent midblock crossings and signal coordination. These approaches to 

corridor planning and intersection design increase visibility and operations at the intersections for all roadway users. 
56

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

RESOURCES FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The following is a summary of key resources referenced in the formation of this guide. Each are also listed in the 

References section of this guide with specific citations. Use of these resources is not required under Federal law or 

regulation. The resources are listed in alphabetical order for each of the following topic areas: 

» Planning for and Selecting Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways.

» Design Guidance for Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways at Intersections.

» Assessment Techniques for Including Bicyclists and Pedestrians at Intersections.

Planning for and Selecting Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts is organized around principles and 

case studies for applying design flexibility and reducing conflicts.(50) Factors for design flexibility, such as vehicle types 

and speeds, encourage consideration for features such as mountable aprons and alternative turn lane configurations. 

The document discusses conflict reduction strategies and priority for separating bike lanes at intersections. 

The Bikeway Selection Guide documents the trade-offs for selecting different bikeway types and covers the process of 

selecting a bikeway from policymaking through the design decision.(15) This guide is a resource to help transportation 

practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade-offs relating to the selection of preferred bikeway 

types based on design speed, motor vehicle volumes, and contextual factors (primarily urban versus rural land use). 

As speeds increase above 30 mph and traffic volumes exceed 6,000 vpd, separated bikeways are preferred for 

roadways in suburban or urban contexts. 

Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach released by the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE) describes a process for designing walkable urban thoroughfares, according to series of context 

categories (e.g., rural, suburban, urban, urban core) and roadway type.(51) The document provides guidance for 

pedestrian walkway and street design based on the different needs and constraints of these context categories. For 

example, as the context becomes more urban and traffic volumes increase, the document recommends increased 

minimum width for pedestrian throughways. The document also includes recommended minimum street side zones 

and wider pathways in the urban core. 

The Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations was developed as part of the 

FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) program.(16)

 The guide outlines a six-step process to identify 

potential crossing locations and provides information on selecting potential countermeasures or crosswalk 

enhancements at uncontrolled locations. The guide includes two tables that assist with potential countermeasure 

selection. Table 1 in the guide leverages current research to identify applicable countermeasures based on tiers 

of roadway configurations, speeds, and AADT ranges. As approaching roadway speeds exceed 35 mph or 9,000 

vpd, recommended countermeasures include RRFBs, PHBs, or other signal controls. The guide also includes Table 

2, cross-referencing general safety issues to potential countermeasures, based on surrounding land development 

context, pedestrian travel patterns, and driver behaviors. 

NCHRP Report 926, Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections, discusses considerations 

at the outset for general types of intersection projects, data types and analysis methods, and suggested criteria 

for selecting and refining potential countermeasures.(21)

 The report includes factors and guiding principles for 

intersection design, and it includes a comprehensive and descriptive list of countermeasures for improving yielding 

and separation by intersection type, crash type, context, user type, and trade-offs.

The Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrians and Bicyclists is a basic overview of the Safe System approach 

and how it relates to bicycle and pedestrian safety.

(19)

 The document includes a summary of the five elements of the 
57

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

Safe System approach and their relevance to pedestrians and bicyclists. This is a resource for the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) and State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), with each providing an opportunity for 

institutionalizing Safe System approach.(52,53)

The FHWA Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) is an interactive online tool for 

bicycle safety countermeasures and strategies to help agencies select appropriate countermeasures.(22) BIKESAFE 

addresses intersection features or countermeasures such as bicycle signal heads and bike lanes. 

The FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) is an online and interactive 

database of countermeasures intended to improve pedestrian safety with tools assisting in countermeasure selection 

and problem identification.(24) PEDSAFE addresses intersection features or countermeasures such as RRFBs, PHBs, 

countdown timers at pedestrian signals, and curb design. 

FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures is a list of countermeasures chosen based on proven safety benefits and 

promoted to encourage widespread implementation.(14) The list includes several pedestrian- and bicyclist-oriented 

countermeasures which could be applied at intersections, including Walkways, Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements, 

Pedestrian Refuge Islands, Bicycle Lanes, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 

(PHB), Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI), Lighting, and Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users. 

FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists are a resource for agencies 

interested in conducting RSAs focused on pedestrians and bicyclists.(54) The guide includes information on the RSA 

process and background on safety for nonmotorized road users at different locations including intersections. The 

main feature of the guide is updated prompt lists designed to help practitioners identify, understand, and mitigate 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues. The prompt lists are broken out by location, allowing practitioners to easily 

pinpoint the prompts most applicable to intersections. 

Design Guidance for Bikeways and Pedestrian Pathways 

at Intersections

The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is a comprehensive bicycle facility guide for bicycle 

facility planning, design, and operations.(23) It presents comprehensive background information about bicycle 

operations and safety, planning, and bicycle facility selection for effective bicycle facility development. The core of 

the guide is the design guidance, general elements of design applicable to all bicycle facility types, and detailed 

guidance for each of the following bicycle facility types: sidepaths, separated bike lanes, bicycle boulevards, shared 

lanes, and bike lanes. A new edition of the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities is expected for 

release. 

The AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities offers design guidance including 

a discussion of elements of design and various facility types including walkways, sidewalks, sidepaths, roadway 

shoulders, shared streets, pedestrian malls, and transit streets.(25)

 Geometric design considerations at crossings are 

addressed in greater detail, including effective and actual corner radii, simple versus compound curves, and curb 

extensions. Additional topics related to pedestrian crossings include sections on curb ramps, crosswalks, interchanges 

and roundabouts, midblock crossings, and traffic control/pavement markings/signs. 

The United States Access Board’s (USAB’s) (Proposed) Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG)

details proposed design requirements for pedestrian access routes including sidewalks and other pedestrian paths 

(or portions thereof), pedestrian street crossings and at-grade rail crossings, overpasses and underpasses (and 

similar structures), curb ramps and blended transitions, access ramps, platforms, and doorways, doors and gates.(30)

The proposed requirements address pedestrian route width, medians and refuge islands, passing space, vertical 

alignment, curb ramp design, detectable warning surface size, pedestrian signal phase timing, and other subjects 

relevant to pedestrian accessibility.
58

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

The Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI) User Needs Assessment identifies practices 

for designing pedestrian pathways and crossings.(55) The document explains that pathways should have sufficient 

width and height for persons who are blind or have low vision who may not see overhanging branches or signs, or 

items such as benches encroaching into the pathway. In addition to standard features such as tactile surfaces and 

curb ramps at crossings, the resource recommends that crossings include time for people with walking disabilities 

and center islands for crosswalks that span multiple lanes. 

The Intersection Safety Issue Brief: Pedestrian Design for Accessibility Within the Public Right of Way discusses 

the importance of designing intersections that are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to meet 

the obligations set forth in the ADA.(27) This includes meeting varying needs of people with disabilities. It includes 

recommendations for designing an accessible intersection by reducing vehicle speeds at vehicles/pedestrian 

conflicts, provision of curb ramps at all crosswalks, and accessible pedestrian signals to communicate the presence 

of a push button (where applicable) and the WALK indication to pedestrians with vision disabilities.

The National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Don’t Give Up at the Intersection guide focuses on 

design strategies and tools for safer accommodation of bicyclists through intersections using design modifications.(56)

The design strategies covered are protected intersections, dedicated intersections, and minor street crossings. The 

guide discusses design tools, which include bikeway setbacks, recessed stop lines, bike-friendly signal phasing, turn 

wedges, vertical separation elements, and raised bike crossings. 

NCHRP Report 834, Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision 

Disabilities, emphasizes the importance of incorporating features for pedestrians with vision disabilities into projects 

that include roundabouts or channelized turn lanes.(28) Key strategies for planning their path related to this project 

include (1) using auditory and tactile cues to maintain the line of travel and (2) aligning with the sound of traffic 

proceeding straight ahead on the street beside them. 

ITE’s Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges identifies 

practices regarding specific dimensions, safety features, signing, pavement markings, design geometries, and other 

treatments to improve the safety and accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists at interchanges.(57) It also presents 

several case studies used to illustrate treatments. 

The FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide documents the process of designing separated 

bikeways, including detailed intersection design guidance.

(58)

 It outlines planning considerations for separated bike 

lanes and provides a menu of design options covering typical one-way and two-way scenarios. The guide includes 

detailed intersection guidance covering different time and space separation techniques, including motor vehicle and 

bicycle turning movements, pavement markings, and signalization strategies and phasing.

NCHRP 969, Traffic Signal Control Strategies for Pedestrians and Bicyclists, references performance measures 

for bicyclists and pedestrians at signalized intersections and provides tools to support signal design. The report 

considers how various geometric design configurations, timing strategies, and phasing options serve bicyclists and 

pedestrians. The report emphasizes treatments for increasing accessibility for pedestrians and bicyclists.(49) 

Assessment Techniques for Including Bicyclists 

and Pedestrians at Intersections

The Primer on Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a brief document describing an overview of ICE, potential 

policies pertaining to ICE, and when to use ICE.(59) Additionally, the primer references three types of resources to 

help agencies carry out ICE processes: (1) intersection reference guides, (2) tools to evaluate operational and safety 

performance, and (3) life-cycle cost analysis tools. The alternatives selection stage of ICE, or Stage II ICE, is more 

detailed and aims to compare alternatives with each other to arrive at the best solution for the intersection. It includes 

more detailed and robust safety and operational analyses, benefit-cost analysis, and more detailed estimates of 

environmental, utility, right-of-way, and other costs and impacts. These analyses typically draw on methods and 
59

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

performance measures contained in other resources such as the HSM and HCM as well as other tools such as traffic 

simulation software. One of the primary scoping-stage ICE analyses is the Safety Performance for Intersection Control 

Evaluation (SPICE).

(60) SPICE is a Microsoft Excel-based spreadsheet tool that assesses the safety performance of 

different intersection type and control type alternatives using HSM techniques. The tool takes in a variety of data 

inputs including vehicle volumes, pedestrian volume, turn lane presence, lighting, left-turn signal phasing, number 

of lanes, transit presence, and other factors. It computes crash predictions over the project life cycle for both total 

crashes and fatal and injury crashes.

A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing Intersections introduces an intersection 

analysis method, known as the Safe System for Intersections (SSI), using typically available project data, such as 

speed (specifically, posted speed limit), AADT volumes, and the number of through lanes on the intersecting roads.

(41)

 The SSI method considers several optional inputs such as vehicle speeds for different intersection movements 

and volumes of bicyclists and pedestrians. The SSI method offers assumptions and default values for their use, but 

agency-prescribed or project-specific values should be used if available. The metrics that result from this method 

can complement crash-based metrics that come from predictive approaches like those in the HSM and SPICE. Users 

can focus on fatalities and serious injuries and the key mechanisms that lead to these injuries (for example, speeds, 

collision angles). Additionally, the method provides a metric for the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians while robust 

crash-based metrics are still in development; and, finally, the document communicates tradeoffs between vehiclevehicle conflict SSI results and vehicle-pedestrian conflict SSI results across different intersection alternatives. 

NCHRP Report 948, Guide for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges (AII), 

introduced the concept of design flags as a qualitative performance measure of potential safety, accessibility, 

operational, or comfort issues for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections.(43) NCHRP Report 948 suggests the 

following key questions regarding pedestrians and bicyclists be considered as the general intersection footprint and 

configuration are being developed:

» What general type of pedestrian facility will be provided on each intersecting street? 

» What general type of bicycle facility (e.g., separated bicycle facility, on-street bike lanes, or sidepath) 

will be provided on each intersecting street? 

» How will each origin-destination route for pedestrians be routed through the intersection (e.g., around 

the perimeter, through the interior)? 

» How much space and what design treatments are needed to enable this pedestrian routing? How 

will each origin-destination route for bicyclists be routed through the intersection (e.g., around the 

perimeter, through the interior)? 

» How much space and what design treatments are needed to enable this bicyclist routing? 

The design flag analysis defines measures of effectiveness and threshold values for red (safety) and yellow (user 

comfort) flags, and it proposes design techniques to mitigate each flag. The report lists 20 flags and denotes whether 

they apply to pedestrians, bicyclists, or both. Changes in red flags result from prevalence of lane crossing, leftturning vehicles, and red times or bicycle clearance times. Changes in yellow flags primarily come from intersection 

unfamiliarity and indirect walking paths or bikeway routes. Each flag can typically be assigned with little associated 

data collection, simply by reviewing an image or drawing of the intersection. The guide also presents potential 

countermeasures or actions that can be taken to mitigate the design flag.

Traffic Analysis and Intersection Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection, which is a supplement to the FHWA 

Bikeway Selection Guide, provides tips and considerations for projecting future year volumes, estimating growth 

rates, selecting an analysis period, and understanding impact of peak traffic periods on analysis.(61)

 It discusses width 

for bike lanes and street buffers per different bikeway types, such as separated bikeways, bike lanes and at mixing 

zones. 
60

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This report was prepared by VHB, under contract to ICF, for the Federal Highway Administration, Office of 

Safety Research and Development under contract number DTFH6116D00052. The FHWA Contracting Officer’s 

Representative for this project was Jeffrey Shaw, Intersections Program Manager with the FHWA Office of Safety. 

The project team was also supported by Toole Design and Open Doors Organization. 

The project team gratefully acknowledges the participation and subject matter expertise of many FHWA personnel in 

reviewing and refining this document.

The authors would also like to thank Annette Gross (VHB) for her assistance with graphics, as well as Jon Soika (VHB), 

Sean Nicol (VHB), Kristin Kersavage (VHB), Bill Schultheiss (Toole Design), and Eric Lipp (Open Doors Organization) 

for their support of this effort.
61

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

REFERENCES

1. NHTSA (2021). Traffic Safety Facts Annual Report Tables. Retrieved from https://cdan.nhtsa.gov/tsftables/tsfar.

htm#.

2. NHTSA (n.d.). Fatality and Injury Reporting System Tool (FIRST). National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Retrieved from https://cdan.dot.gov/query.

3. FHWA (2020). The Safe System Approach [FHWA-SA-20-015]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

4. USDOT (2015). Complete Streets. United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.

transportation.gov/mission/health/complete-streets.

5. USDOT (2010). Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations. 

United States Department of Transportation. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_

pedestrian/guidance/policy_accom.cfm.

6. Hughes, W., Jagannathan, R., Sengupta, D., & Hummer, J. (2010). Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: 

Informational Report (AIIR) [FHWA-HRT-09-060]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved 

from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/09060.pdf.

7. Chandler, B.E., Myers, M.C., Atkinson, J.E., Bryer, T.E., Retting, R., Smithline, J.,..., & Izadpanah, P. (2013). Signalized 

Intersections Informational Guide, Second Edition [FHWA-SA-13-027]. Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/signal/fhwasa13027.pdf.

8. Rodegerdts, L., Bansen, J., Tiesler, C., Knudsen, J., Myers, E., Johnson, M., ..., & O’Brien, A. Roundabouts: An 

Informational Guide, Second Edition [NCHRP Report 672]. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/164470.aspx.

9. Reid, J., Sutherland, L., Ray, B., Daleiden, A., Jenior, P., & Knudsen, J. (2014). Median U-Turn Informational Guide

[FHWA-SA-14-067]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

intersection/rltci/fhwasa14069.pdf.

10. Hummer, J., Ray, B., Daleiden, A., Jenior, P., & Knudsen, J. (2014). Restricted Crossing U-Turn Informational Guide

[FHWA-SA-14-070]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

intersection/rltci/fhwasa14070.pdf.

11. Reid, J.D. & Hummer, J.E. (2020). Quadrant Roadway Intersection Informational Guide [FHWA-SA-19-029]. 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/other/

fhwasa19029.pdf.

12. Steyn, H., Bugg, Z., Ray, B., Daleiden, A., Jenior, P., & Knudson, J. (2014). Displaced Left Turn Informational Guide

[FHWA-SA-14-068]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

intersection/crossover/fhwasa14068.pdf.

13. Schroeder, B., Cunningham, C., Ray, B., Daleiden, A., Jenior, P., & Knudsen, J. (2014). Diverging Diamond 

Interchange Informational Guide [FHWA-SA-14-067]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved 

from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/crossover/fhwasa14067.pdf.

14. FHWA (2021a). Proven Safety Countermeasures. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Retrieved 

from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/.

15. Schultheiss, B., Goodman, D., Blackburn, L., Wood, A., Reed, D., & Elbech, M. (2019). Bikeway Selection Guide

[FHWA-SA-18-077]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf.
62

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

16. Blackburn, L., Zegeer, C., & Brookshire, K. (2018). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 

Locations [FHWA-SA-17-072]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-

508compliant.pdf.

17. Hawkins, N. & Hallmark, S. (2020). Noteworthy Speed Management Practices [FHWA-SA-20-047]. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/

fhwasa20047/fhwasa20047.pdf.

18. FHWA (2021b). Intersection Control Evaluation. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ice/index.cfm.

19. Goughnour, E., Peach, K., Dunn, M., Mitman, M., & Gelinne, D. (2021). Primer on Safe System Approach for 

Pedestrians and Bicyclists [FHWA-SA-21-065]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa21065.pdf.

20. AASHTO (2018). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, Seventh Edition. American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington. DC.

21. Sanders, R., Schultheiss, B., Judelman, B., Burchfield, R., Nordback, K., Gelinne, D., ..., & Koonce, P. (2020). 

Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections [NCHRP Report 926]. National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/180624.

aspx.

22. Sundstrom, C., Nabors, D., Hintze, M. Schultheiss, B., Lagerwey, P., & Langford, K. (2014). BIKESAFE. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/.

23. AASHTO (2012). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

24. Zegeer, C.V., Nabors, D., Lagerwey, P., Sundstrom, C., Lovas, D., Huber, T., ..., & Bushell, M. (2013). PEDSAFE. 

Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/.

25. AASHTO (2021). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, Second Edition. American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC.

26. FHWA (2009a). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/. (incorporated by reference into 23 CFR part 655, subpart F by 

23 CFR 655.601(d)(2)(i)).

27. FHWA (2009b). Intersection Safety Issue Brief: Pedestrian Design for Accessibility Within the Public Right-of-Way

[FHWA-SA-10-005]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/

view/dot/49970.

28. Schroeder, B., Rodegerdts, L., Jenior, P., Myers, E., Cunningham, C., Salamati, K.,..., & Bentzen, B.L. (2016). Crossing 

Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities [NCHRP Report 

834]. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.

trb.org/Main/Blurbs/175586.aspx.

29. FHWA (2018b). Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements: Countermeasure Tech Sheet [FHWA-SA-18-061]. Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/

techSheet_VizEnhancemt2018.pdf.

30. USAB (2011). (Proposed) Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. United States Access Board, Washington, 

DC. Retrieved from https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/.
63

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

31. FHWA (2018c). Pedestrian Refuge Island: Countermeasure Tech Sheet [FHWA-SA-18-062]. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/techSheet_

PedRefugeIsland2018.pdf.

32. FHWA (2011). Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14). Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/

index.htm.

33. FHWA (2013). Interim Approval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal Face (IA-16). Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/.

34. FHWA (2016). Interim Approval for Optional Use of an Intersection Bicycle Box (IA-18). Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia18/

index.htm.

35. FHWA (2017). Interim Approval for Optional Use of Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (IA-20). Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia20/

index.htm.

36. FHWA (2019). Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) [FHWA-SA-19-040]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, 

DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/fhwasa19040.pdf.

37. TRB (2010). Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.

38. AASHTO (2010). The Highway Safety Manual. American Association of State Highway Transportation 

Professionals, Washington, DC.

39. AASHTO (n.d.) Highway Safety Manual Tools. American Association of State Highway Transportation Professionals, 

Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/pages/tools.aspx.

40. FHWA (2021c). Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. 

Retrieved from http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm.

41. Porter, R.J., Dunn, M.R., Soika, J., Huang, I., Coley, D., Gross, A., Kumfer, W., & Heiny, S. (2021). A Safe SystemBased Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing Intersections [FHWA-SA-21-008]. Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ssi/fhwasa21008.pdf.

42. Carter, D., Hunter, W.W., Zegeer, C.V., & Stewart J.R. (2007). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices: 

User Guide [FHWA-HRT-06-130]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/pedbike/06130/06130.pdf.

43. Schroeder, B., Rodegerdts, L., Bugg, Z., Jenior, P., Warchol, S., Alston, M.,... & Chlewicki, G. (2020). Guide for 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges (AII) [NCHRP Report 948]. National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.trb.org/Main/

Blurbs/181781.aspx.

44. Guidance on the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(i) (2010). https://www.ada.gov/

regs2010/2010ADAStandards/Guidance2010ADAstandards.htm.

45. US Department of Justice (2010). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Retrieved from 

https://www.ada.gov/.

46. Tingvall, C. & Haworth, N. (1999). Vision Zero – An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility. Presented at the 6th ITE 

International Conference on Road Safety & Traffic Enforcement: Beyond 2000, Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved 

from https://www.monash.edu/muarc/archive/our-publications/papers/visionzero.

47. Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero – Implementing a Policy for Traffic Safety. Safety Science, 47(6), 826-831. 

Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2008.10.023.
64

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

48. Fitzpatrick, K., R. Avelar, M. P. Pratt, S. Das, & D. Lord (2021). Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius, RightTurn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at Signalized Intersections [FHWA-HRT-21-105]. Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

49. Lee, K., Schroeder, B., Cesme, B.,... Lavrenz, S. (2022). NCHRP Report 969: Traffic Signal Control Strategies for

Pedestrians and Bicyclists (2022). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.

nap.edu/catalog/26491/traffic-signal-control-strategies-for-pedestrians-and-bicyclists.

50. Porter, C., Danila, M., Fink, C., Toole, J., Mongelli, E., Schultheiss, W. (2016). Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying 

Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts [FHWA-HEP-16-055]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_networks/.

51. ITE (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach [RP-036A]. Institute of

Transportation Engineers, Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=e1cff43c%2D2354

%2Dd714%2D51d9%2Dd82b39d4dbad.

52. FHWA (2021d). Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/.

53. FHWA (2021e). Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Retrieved 

from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/shsp/.

54. Goughnour, E., Albee, M., Thomas, L., Gelinne, D., & Seymour, J. (2020). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety

Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists [FHWA-SA-20-042]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.

Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa20042.pdf.

55. Pierce, B., Plapper, E., & Rizek, J. (2016). Accessible Transportation Technologies Research Initiative (ATTRI) User

Needs Assessment: Stakeholder Engagement Report [FHWA-JPO-16-354]. Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, D.C. Retrieved from https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/31320.

56. NACTO (2019). Don’t Give Up at the Intersection: Designing All Ages and Abilities. National Association of

City Transportation Officials, New York, NY. Retrieved from https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-theintersection.

57. Mitman, M.F. & Ridgway, M.D. (2016). Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and

Bicycles at Interchanges [RP-039A]. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://

ecommerce.ite.org/IMIS/ItemDetail?iProductCode=RP-039A.

58. Sundstrom, C., Rosenblatt, B., Kellerman, S., Rothenberg, H., Retting, R., Semler, C., ..., & Schneider, R. (2015).

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide [FHWA-HEP-15-025]. Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/

separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf.

59. FHWA (2018a). Primer on Intersection Control Evaluation [FHWA-SA-18-076]. Federal Highway Administration,

Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ice/fhwasa18076.pdf

60. Jenior, P., Bustick, A., Haas, P., & Ray, B. (2018). Safety Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE)

Tool User Guide [FHWA-SA-18-026]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://

www.cmfclearinghouse.org/collateral/FHWA-SA-18-026%20SPICE%20Tool%20User%20Guide%20(Final).pdf.

61. Mosier, B., Schultheiss, B., Goodman, D., Draper, J., & Blackburn, L. (2021). Traffic Analysis and Intersection

Considerations to Inform Bikeway Selection [FHWA-SA-21-010]. Federal Highway Administration, Washington,

DC. Retrieved from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/FHWA-SA-21-010_Traffic_Analysis_

Intersection_Considerations.pdf.
65

IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS INFORMATIONAL GUIDE

FHWA-SA-22-017