How to Develop a Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

AUGUST 2017

FHWA-SA-17-050
i

Notice

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

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

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

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

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

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-17-050

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

5. Report Date

August 2017

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

UNC: Dan Gelinne, Libby Thomas, Katy Lang, Charles V. Zegeer; VHB: Elissa Goughnour

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 

Vienna, VA 22182‐2626 

University of North Carolina 

Highway Safety Research Center 

Chapel Hill, NC 27599

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-16-D-00005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative: Tamara Redmon 

Further technical input and content development provided by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) Safety 

Countermeasures Division within the Office of Safety Programs.

This guide is a revision of How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa0512.pdf) originally 

developed in 2006 and revised in 2009 for the Federal Highway Administration and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The 

current version builds on the existing content, which was created by the following authors and organizations: UNC Highway Safety Research 

Center (Charles V. Zegeer, Laura Sandt and Margaret Scully). Other Contributors: Michael Ronkin, Mike Cynecki, and Peter Lagerwey 

16. Abstract

The purpose of this guide is to assist agencies in developing and implementing a safety action plan to improve conditions for bicycling and 

walking. The plan lays out a vision for improving safety, examining existing conditions, and using a data-driven approach to match safety 

programs and improvements with demonstrated safety concerns. This guide will help agencies enhance their existing safety programs and 

activities, including identifying safety concerns and selecting optimal solutions. It will also serve as a reference for improving pedestrian and 

bicycle safety through a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to safety, including street designs and countermeasures, policies, and 

behavioral programs. 

17. Key Words

Bicycle, pedestrian, safety, plan, resource, guide

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

66

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8‐72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized
iii

Images

Nearly all of the images in this guide were sourced from the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center’s (PBIC) Image 

Library (www.pedbikeimages.org). A special thanks to Dan Burden, who provided most of the images used in this guide 

from the PBIC Image Library.
Table of Contents

iv

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ....................................................................................................1

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Problem Background ........................................................................................1

Components of a Safety Action Plan ...........................................................................................................................2

How to Use This Guide ..........................................................................................................................................................5

Closing Thoughts ......................................................................................................................................................................6

Chapter 2. Establishing a Vision for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety ...................................................7

Street Design Policies Affecting Nonmotorized Road Users .........................................................................7

Design and Policy Elements that Influence Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety .......................................8

Strategies to Improve Safety ........................................................................................................................................... 12

Reviewing Existing Policies and Design Guidelines ......................................................................................... 14

Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................................... 14

Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems ............................................................................................. 15

Strategies for Identifying High-Crash or High-Risk Locations .................................................................... 15

Information Needed to Identify and Understand Safety Problems ....................................................... 16

Common Types of Safety Data ...................................................................................................................................... 16

Types of Areas to Identify ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................................... 23

Chapter 4. Involving Stakeholders ............................................................................................................... 25

Stakeholders to Involve ..................................................................................................................................................... 26

Principles and Strategies for Involving Stakeholders ...................................................................................... 29

Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................................... 30

Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements .............................................................................................. 31

Diagnosing Safety Problems........................................................................................................................................... 31

Types of Solutions ................................................................................................................................................................. 33

Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Chapter 6. Program Implementation and Evaluation ........................................................................... 43

Funding Strategies ................................................................................................................................................................ 43

Funding Criteria and Prioritization .............................................................................................................................. 45

Major Funding Sources ...................................................................................................................................................... 45

Evaluating Safety Programs and Projects ............................................................................................................... 47

Closing Thoughts ................................................................................................................................................................... 49

Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 51

Appendix A. List of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Guides and Resources .................................... 53

Appendix B. Examples of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Plans .......................................................... 55

Appendix C. Checklist of Safety Action Plan Elements ......................................................................... 57
v

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

List of Figures

Figure 1. Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in the US by year, 2006 to 2015. .......................................1

Figure 2. Seattle Vision Zero data for bicycle and pedestrian safety analysis. ................................... 18

Figure 3. Santa Ana crash type identification example. .......................................................................... 19

Figure 4. Chicago Department of Transportation modal hierarchy. .................................................... 33

Figure 5. The ActiveTrans Priority Tool. ......................................................................................................... 46

List of Tables

Table 1. Pedestrian and bicycle crash data and potential risks. ............................................................ 21

Table 2. Walk First crash profiles and recommended solutions. .......................................................... 37

1

1

Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

The purpose of this guide is to present an overview 

and framework to develop and implement a 

safety action plan to improve conditions for 

bicycling and walking. 

A safety action plan provides a framework for focusing 

your community’s attention on improving conditions 

for bicycling and walking. The plan lays out a vision for 

improving safety, examining existing conditions, and 

using a data-driven approach to match safety programs

and improvements with demonstrated problems. 

This guide is intended to help State and local officials

decide where to begin to address pedestrian and bicycle

safety issues. It will help agencies enhance their existing

safety programs and activities, including identifying safety

problems and selecting optimal solutions. The guide will

also serve as a reference for improving pedestrian and

bicycle safety through a multidisciplinary and collaborative approach to safety, including street designs and 

countermeasures, policies, and behavioral programs. 

Engineers, planners, traffic safety and enforcement 

professionals, public health and injury prevention professionals, and decision-makers who have the responsibility

of improving pedestrian and bicycle safety at the 

State or local level can use this guide.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety Problem Background

A total of 5,376 pedestrians1 and 818 bicyclists2

were killed in crashes involving motor vehicles 

in the United States in 2015, according to data 

compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA). These fatalities represented 17.7 percent of all traffic related deaths

Multiple road users share our transportation system, each with their own 

safety needs and concerns. Credit: Dan Gelinne, PBIC Image Library. 

in the United States that year. Many more nonmotorized 

road users are injured each year, in addition to many 

unreported crashes or near misses involving pedestrians 

and bicyclists.3

 While reducing crashes continues to gain 

priority among some State and local agencies, as well as 

the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), 

more eff orts are needed to develop and implement eff ective strategies to reduce injuries and deaths.

Figure 1. Total pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in the US by year, 2006 to 2015. 

Source: NHTSA Traffi c Safety Facts. 

1 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017, February). Pedestrians: 2015 data. (Traffi c Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 375). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration.

2 National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017, March). Bicyclists and other cyclists: 2015 data. (Traffi c Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 

812 382). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffi c Safety Administration 

3 Stutts, J. C., & Hunter, W. W. (1999). Motor vehicle and roadway factors in pedestrian and bicyclist injuries: An examination based on emergency department data. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 31, 505-514.
2

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

The safety literature reveals a variety of risk factors that 

influence the risk of pedestrian and bicycle crashes and 

severity. For example, crash risk increases on wide roads 

(four lanes or more) with high motor vehicle speeds and 

volumes. Intersections are more difficult to cross when 

pedestrians encounter wide crossing distances, large 

turning radii, multiple turn lanes, or traffic controls that 

are confusing or complex. Roadways with high vehicle 

speeds and volumes create potential for conflicts for 

bicyclists, who may resort to riding on sidewalks that 

do not provide adequate separation from pedestrians. 

Diminished visibility and conspicuity, due to obstructions, 

lack of lighting, and other factors, can increase the crash 

risk for both pedestrians and bicyclists. Older pedestrians 

and bicyclists are much more susceptible to serious or 

fatal injuries because of their frailty and limitations with 

respect to vision and reaction times. Younger children are 

unable to adequately judge gaps in traffic to negotiate a 

crossing and may be more likely to dart unexpectedly 

into traffic.

Many crashes are the result of road user behaviors, but 

casting the blame upon victims themselves ignores the 

fact that the environment directly influences motorist, 

pedestrian, bicyclist, and other road user behaviors. For 

example, wide streets encourage higher motorist speeds. 

High-volume multilane roads with long distances between 

traffic signals and a lack of improved crossings at regular 

and shorter intervals can contribute to pedestrians 

crossing streets at unexpected locations. Land use decisions can also indirectly affect pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. For example, many people would like to be able to 

walk or bike to local businesses and restaurants. However, 

in areas that have been developed to prioritize motor 

vehicle access, a gradual change in adjacent land uses can 

result in more pedestrian and bicycle trips where accommodations do not exist, placing these road users in highrisk situations. That crash risk is even greater when highvolume, high-speed, multilane roads divide those areas. 

In a society that values choice and freedom, people 

should be able to bike or walk safely, whether for fun and 

recreation, errands, getting to work or school, shopping, 

or other reasons. Unfortunately, many of our nation’s 

streets and highways were primarily built to facilitate the 

convenience of motor vehicles. Yet, walking is the fundamental mode of human mobility; everyone is a pedestrian 

at some point in every journey that they take. Bicycling 

offers numerous economic, quality of life, and health 

benefits. Many agencies are trying to adjust their traditionally auto-oriented approach to roadway design to 

accommodate the rise in both walking 

and biking. Understanding the desire for 

individuals to walk or bike and the risks 

and factors involved in crashes, agencies 

can begin to prioritize and address the 

safety needs of nonmotorized road users.

Components of a Safety 

Action Plan

Attempts to address and prioritize 

road safety require a collaborative and 

multidisciplinary approach. Relying on 

standalone strategies, such as roadway 

design or awareness campaigns, will not 

accomplish the goal of reducing fatalities and injuries. The development of 

effective approaches involves all partners, from leaders and decision makers 

to individuals with disabilities and school districts. The 

development of a safe transportation system requires 

collaboration between all types of transportation professionals and community stakeholders. A variety of strategies are available to improve safety, from roadway design 

and engineering to policies and behavioral campaigns, 

and each should be included in a successful safety action 

plan. With this in mind, this guide lays out a framework 

for developing a comprehensive safety action plan to 

address pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

Older adults and those with limited vision may be unable to adequately negotiate gaps in traffic

for crossing opportunities. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC Image Library. 
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

3

Many communities struggle with the focus of their safety 

plans: Where pedestrians and bicyclists are concerned, 

should the plan consider them together or separately? Can 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety be adequately addressed in a 

plan that addresses the safety of all road users? The answers 

to these questions depend on many factors. Community size, 

available resources, and the scope of the safety problem will 

all help determine what sort of plan is needed. Pedestrians 

and bicyclists each have unique safety needs and require 

careful consideration of appropriate safety interventions. 

Changes made to improve pedestrian safety can sometimes, 

but will not always, improve safety for bicyclists. Providing 

more direct and convenient connections between origins 

and destinations can directly benefit both modes. However, 

simply building sidewalks along a corridor is often not sufficient for addressing bicyclist safety issues on that corridor. 

Similarly, some safety improvements can provide direct 

benefits to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and other road 

users. Deploying speed management programs will positively 

impact safety for all road users.

Your safety action plan should help reinforce and build upon 

other existing plans that address the walking and bicycling 

environment. Coordination with other plans will ensure 

that the approach laid out in your safety action plan will 

not contradict other plans’ recommendations. Furthermore, 

by coordinating your plan with other guiding documents, 

you may be able to more effectively collaborate with other 

partners and build on shared goals. The following list includes 

some examples of existing plans that should be coordinated 

with the pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan:

■ State Strategic Highway Safety Plans.

■ Community-wide Transportation or Mobility Plan.

■ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan.

■ Trails or Greenways Plan.

■ Parks and Recreation Plans.

■ Capital Improvement Plans.

■ Area-Specific or Neighborhood Plans.

Regardless of your agency’s approach, there are several 

critical elements of any safety action plan. Each of these 

is covered in greater detail in the subsequent chapters of this guide.

■ Defined Safety Goals and Performance Measures.

■ Safety Data Analysis.

■ Stakeholder Engagement.

■ Countermeasure and Program Recommendations.

■ Implementation and Evaluation.

Separate or Combined 

Safety Action Plans?

Communities may struggle with the decision 

to create individual safety action plans for each 

road user type or to combine multiple user types 

into one safety action plan. This is ultimately the 

decision of the local community, but a few of 

these factors may influence your approach. First, 

consider your available resources. Do you have the 

staff and budget resources to create multiple 

plans, or would it be more efficient to combine 

these into one document? Consider a combined 

plan if you would like to pool your resources into 

one effort. Second, think about how you can most 

effectively tie your safety plan into existing documents and plans. Would it help you coordinate 

activities by including all road users in one safety 

plan? Communities who have combined transportation decisions into a complete streets framework may find benefits in addressing road users in 

one single plan.

There are also good reasons to consider developing separate plans. Your community may 

already have a mode-specific safety plan. If so, it 

might be beneficial to concentrate another plan 

entirely on another mode that wasn’t already 

captured in previous documents. Your State 

agency may have specific target areas for 

individual road users identified in its Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). If that is the case, you 

might consider a separate action plan for each 

road user to align with the State’s goals and 

funding opportunities. Finally, your community’s 

size may help you determine the most appropriate 

scope for your plan. Larger cities with more miles 

of roadway may find it difficult to combine every 

road user into one plan. 

This decision should be made carefully, early in the 

planning process. Ultimately your community’s 

context will drive the type of plan you choose to 

develop. 
4

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Defined Safety Goals and Performance 

Measures

A community should clearly communicate its vision 

and goals for road safety in its safety action plan. 

Many local and State agencies’ plans lay out an objective to “improve safety” without attaching specific

benchmarks or performance metrics. A good plan will 

include explicit target for reducing fatalities, injuries, 

and/or crashes, as well as a timeline for achieving 

these results. The Federal Highway Administration’s 

Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance 

Measures (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/

page02.cfm) identifies 21 different performance 

measures that can be used to measure an agency’s 

progress toward improving safety as well as other 

goal categories such as health and connectivity. 

Many communities across the country are moving 

toward a more comprehensive approach to road 

safety through Vision Zero programs. Vision Zero reaffirms an agency’s commitment to safety by calling for 

the elimination of road fatalities, and in some cases 

serious injuries, by prioritizing safety above other 

transportation goals. Through early and frequent 

collaboration between transportation agencies, law 

enforcement departments, public health agencies, 

and a host of community organizations and stakeholders, these programs seek to respond to safety 

problems by laying out a framework for improving 

safety for all road users. Vision Zero action plans 

provide a specific focus on each mode, but capture 

road safety in a single unifying program. Vision Zero 

programs and those with other goals should think 

about how they set their interim benchmarks and 

performance measures. Chapter 2 of this guide 

provides a look at the background of the pedestrian 

and bicycle safety problems and encourages 

agencies to think about their community’s vision for 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety.

Safety Data Analysis

Safety plans should be data-driven and based on 

demonstrated safety problems and risks. Communities cannot adequately respond to a safety problem 

without first defining its scope and magnitude. 

Strategies are available for examining and identifying 

high-crash locations, but a good safety plan will also 

Performance Measures 

and Safety Goals

At the national level, agencies can look to guidance 

from FHWA for establishing and tracking safety 

performance measures as part of the Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

hsip/spm/). The following five performance measures are 

used to track and measure safety performance as fiveyear rolling averages:

■ Number of Fatalities.

■ Rate of Fatalities per 100 million Vehicle

Miles Traveled (VMT).

■ Number of Serious Injuries.

■ Rate of Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT.

■ Number of Non-motorized Fatalities and

Non-motorized Serious Injuries.

Another useful resource for safety performance measurement is the FHWA Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Performance Measures (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/

page02.cfm), which identifies the following performance 

measures that relate to achieving safety goals:

■ Access to

Community Destinations.

■ Adherence to

Accessibility Laws.

■ Adherence to Traffic Laws.

■ Average Travel Time.

■ Average Trip Length.

■ Connectivity Index.

■ Crashes.

■ Crossing Opportunities.

■ Delay.

■ Density of Destinations.

■ Facility Maintenance.

■ Level of Service.

■ Miles of Pedestrian/

Bicycle Facilities.

■ Network Completeness.

■ Pedestrian Space.

■ Population Served by

Walk/Bike/Transit.

■ Route Directness.

■ Street Trees.

■ User Perceptions.

■ Vehicle Miles Traveled

(VMT) Impacts.

■ Volume.

For more information about these measures and others, 

please refer to Table 5 from the Guidebook for Developing 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures (https://www.fhwa.dot.

gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_

guidebook/page02.cfm).
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background

5

examine areas of high-risk for crashes and injuries. By identifying areas of high-risk, an agency can deploy resources 

proactively in an effort to prevent injuries and fatalities 

from occurring. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the 

safety analysis process and some strategies for identifying 

high-crash and high-risk locations.

Stakeholder Engagement

While analysis of safety data provides a quantitative and 

objective way to examine a safety problem, the users 

of the transportation system should be included in the 

development of a safety plan. Relying solely on regular 

public meetings and resident complaints is not a sufficient strategy to incorporate a community’s input into a 

safety plan. Agencies are challenged to develop public 

outreach strategies that seek input from all members of 

the community, especially those who may not regularly 

participate or attend public meetings. In addition to 

the general public, there are dozens of stakeholders to 

include in this process – from local business owners and 

nonprofits to school districts and public health agencies. 

Chapter 4 provides ideas about engaging the public in 

your plan and project development process.

Countermeasure and Program 

Recommendations

One of the most critical elements of any safety plan is 

to match identified safety problems and community 

concerns with specific countermeasures and programs 

that address those problems. Plans that identify problems 

are not complete if they only include a laundry list of every 

available countermeasure or program. Policies, campaigns, 

enforcement strategies, and design solutions should be 

tailored to the identified safety problems based on an 

analysis of available data and further diagnosis. The range 

of solutions are presented in Chapter 5.

Implementation and Evaluation

Safety action plans should be implemented through 

careful coordination among all partners. With limited 

funding to support safety programs, opportunities for 

collaboration and coordination should be identified

and laid out in the safety action plan. Specific sources of 

funding can be identified and attached to various recommendations. Finally, including a process for program evaluation is essential. Regular evaluation of safety projects is 

the only way to track progress toward meeting the plan’s 

goals, yet this step is often omitted from an agency’s 

activities. Evaluating projects can also help build the 

case for future investment by demonstrating a program’s 

success. Evaluation should be built into the plan and steps 

should be taken to collect data and perform routine evaluation as projects are implemented. Strategies for funding, 

implementing, and evaluating your safety programs are 

included in Chapter 6.

In addition to the main contents of this guide, you can 

find supporting resources and links in the Appendices. 

Appendix A provides a complete list of tools and 

resources mentioned in this guide. Appendix B features 

some examples of safety action plans developed by State, 

regional, and local agencies. Finally, Appendix C includes 

a framework you can use to evaluate your existing plans 

and identify opportunities to enhance your programs.

How to Use This Guide 

Creating a pedestrian and/or bicycle safety action plan 

requires advance planning and collaboration among 

multiple partners. The subsequent chapters of this guide 

are organized into the major components of any safety 

action plan. The following step-by-step approach can be 

used to guide your process and help you navigate the 

contents of this guide.

Step 1 - Establish Goals and Objectives

■ Determine the scope of the safety action plan.

■ Establish goals and targets for improving safety.

Step 2 - Analyze Safety Data

■ Perform analysis of high-c rash and high-r isk locations.

■ Identify spot locations, corridors, areas, and system-wide problems.

Step 3 - Gather Stakeholder Input

■ Identify community stakeholders to involve.

■ Establish venues and channels for gathering stakeholder input.

Step 4 - Identify Safety Improvements

■ Diagnose sites to understand safety problems.

■ Develop recommendations for policy changes, design and 

countermeasure improvements, and behavioral programs.

Step 5 - Implement and Evaluate Programs

■ Identify funding sources and strategies to support projects.

■ Determine criteria for prioritizing projects.

■ Collect data to evaluate programs and inform future actions.
6

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

There are numerous resources available to help agencies navigate the various steps needed for developing, 

implementing, and evaluating safety action plans. FHWA 

produced Non-Motorized User Safety: A Manual for Local Rural Road 

Owners (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa010413/)

to provide guidance for making safety improvements 

on local and rural roads. The report provides a useful 

framework for thinking about identifying safety problems and making recommendations for safety improvements. Another guide from FHWA, Improving Safety on Rural 

Local and Tribal Roads (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/

fhwasa14072/isrltrst.pdf), lays out an entire toolkit of safety 

resources and recommends step-by-step approaches an 

agency can take to develop safety action plans. Though 

the guide is specific to rural and tribal roads, the steps can 

be applied in a wide range of settings.

Closing Thoughts 

This guide will help your agency navigate the process of 

developing a plan of action for improving the walking and 

bicycling transportation network. From developing your 

goals to developing a strategic approach for deploying 

policy improvements, design changes, and behavioral 

campaigns, the subsequent chapters will help you 

understand what is needed to develop a comprehensive 

strategy for addressing safety problems.
2

7

Establishing a Vision for 

Chapter 2. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

A safety plan should acknowledge the unique needs 

of pedestrians and bicyclists among road users 

and lay out a vision for improving their safety. This 

chapter will help your community understand how 

to approach pedestrian and bicycle safety problems 

and understand the ways in which transportation 

decisions affect nonmotorized road users.

This chapter explains how some common roadway 

design practices and policies can have negative impacts 

on bicyclist and pedestrian travel and safety. It also 

discusses other major factors that affect safety such as 

street connectivity, site design, land use, and access 

management. Next, it suggests changes that can lead to 

improvements in the pedestrian and bicyclist environment. Finally, it discusses the need to institutionalize these 

changes by reviewing, amending, and adopting policies 

and design guidelines to better accommodate pedestrian 

and bicyclist travel.

design process from the beginning to ensure the quality 

of future developments.

Good safety planning should include an understanding 

of the users of the transportation system. With an 

understanding of the unique needs and characteristics 

of pedestrians and bicyclists, those involved in safety 

planning can more effectively understand how new 

and existing facilities should operate, as well as how 

these users will act when faced with certain conditions. 

Applying a practical understanding of nonmotorized road 

user characteristics will provide insights when considering 

appropriate solutions and will particularly help ensure 

that streets are safe and inviting to these users. 

Important characteristics include understanding why and 

where people walk or bike, what types of design features 

create a safer environment for walking or biking, and what 

types of behavioral decisions people are likely to make. In 

addition, nonmotorized road users also consist of specific

populations, including children (who may be impulsive 

or unpredictable), individuals with disabilities (who may 

require audible signals and other design enhancements), 

and older adults (who may require additional time for 

roadway crossings). Some locations may have additional kinds of nonmotorized uses, such as skateboard 

or equestrian use.

Street Design Policies Affecting 

Nonmotorized Road Users

Motor vehicle-focused design policies have resulted in 

many unintended consequences for nonmotorized users 

of the transportation system. In particular, two examples 

of these policies are the effort to achieve a desired level 

of service for motor vehicles and designing streets to 

accommodate large vehicles.

Achieving a Desired Level of Service

Level of Service (LOS) is a descriptive framework for 

describing hourly flow conditions of motor vehicle traffic, 

Roads that prioritize motor vehicle traffic can introduce safety risks and challenges for pedestrians and bicyclists. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC Image Library. 

It is important to be proactive as well as responsive to 

safety problems. This chapter reflects the need to develop 

safety action plans both as a response to current design 

issues and as an effort to integrate pedestrians into the 
8

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

expressed in letter grades A through F. The LOS framework 

ranges from LOS A (free-flowing unimpeded motor vehicle 

traffic) to LOS F (gridlock). LOS D and beyond is typical 

of congested urban areas where streets regularly reach 

capacity and motor vehicle traffic is moving relatively 

slowly. It is not uncommon for intersections to operate at 

LOS F during the peak hour periods of traffic.

The measurements and calculations needed to predict or 

determine LOS are quantitative. However, the desired LOS 

is often a political or policy decision, based on how much 

congestion decision-makers assume the public will 

tolerate. Those communities that have sought to 

local streets is known as an SU (Single Unit delivery truck), 

such as those used by delivery and shipping services.

The most critical application of this concept is at intersections, where the radius is made large enough so the 

design vehicle can make a right turn without encroaching 

into other lanes. This can have a negative effect on 

pedestrian safety and comfort, because a large radius 

allows passenger vehicles to make right turns at higher 

speeds and increases the pedestrian’s crossing distance. 

Vehicles turning at higher speeds can result in a more 

severe crash involving a bicyclist or a pedestrian and the 

turning motor vehicle.

Design and Policy Elements that 

Influence Pedestrian and Bicyclist 

Safety 

There are many factors that affect safety, mobility, and 

access for pedestrians and bicyclists within the transportation network. Certain design practices and policies 

conceived to improve motor vehicle mobility are now 

recognized as barriers to a roadway environment that 

facilitates walking and biking. The major planning, design, 

and policy elements that impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety include:

■ Street design.

■ Network connectivity.

■ Site design.

■ Land use.

■ Access management.

This guide includes a discussion about improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety through street redesign and 

engineering. The interrelated subjects of street connectivity, site design, land use, and access management, while 

major components of a well-built environment, will be 

discussed briefly within the context of providing safer 

environments for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Street Design

The traditional street system is based on a simple hierarchy: most trips originate on local streets; travelers are 

then connected via collector streets to arterials, which are 

intended to carry large amounts of motor vehicle traffic

long distances at higher speeds. This approach assumes 

that most trips occur by motor vehicle, so most of the facilDesigning intersections to accommodate turns by large vehicles may result 

in corners that facilitate faster turning vehicle speeds, as well as longer crossing distances. Credit: Libby Thomas, PBIC Image Library. 

have motor vehicle traffic flow smoothly often have 

characteristically wide roads and intersections, with 

minimal accommodations for nonmotorized road users. 

Consequently, they may experience higher crash rates 

for all roadway users, as bicyclist and pedestrian accommodations are sacrificed in order to achieve higher levels 

of vehicle mobility.

Accommodating Special Vehicles

Roadway design is usually predicated on the concept 

of the “design vehicle.” The design vehicle is the largest 

vehicle that can be expected to use the road often 

enough to justify designing the roadway to accommodate 

that vehicle. Large design vehicles are commonly trucks 

and buses, including trash collection trucks, moving vans, 

school buses, and fire trucks. A typical design vehicle for 
Chapter 2. Establishing a Vision for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

9

ities are designed primarily for motor vehicle 

travel. By designing the traditional street 

system with a focus on motor vehicles, many 

current roadways do not serve pedestrians 

and bicyclists due to:

1. Lack of appropriate facilities: Many

collector and arterial streets are built with

inadequate or limited pedestrian or bicycle

facilities. Without sidewalks, pedestrians may

choose not to walk or may be forced to walk

on the shoulder or the side of the roadway,

and without separated facilities, bicyclists

may not be comfortable sharing the road

with motor vehicles.

2. Multiple lanes with long crossing

distances and high volumes and speeds:

Since arterial roads are designed to facilitate smooth and efficient motor vehicle flow, they often 

have multiple lanes in each direction to accommodate 

high motor vehicle traffic volumes and multiple turn 

lanes. The number of lanes a pedestrian must cross has a 

direct effect on the complexity of the crossing task and 

the pedestrian crash risk. The pedestrian must find an

adequate gap in motor vehicle traffic, a task that increases 

exponentially with the number of lanes. As speeds and 

volumes increase, it can be more difficult for pedestrians 

and bicyclists to negotiate gaps in traffic for crossing at 

uncontrolled locations.

3. Complex intersections: Typically, wide arterial streets

have intersections that are even wider due to the addition of multiple turn lanes. They also often have large

turning radii to allow larger vehicles, such as trucks and 

buses, to make turns easily and quickly. This requires 

pedestrians to cross longer distances and watch for more 

cars in more lanes, an often challenging and dangerous 

task. Skewed intersection designs and high vehicle rightand left-turn volumes at an intersection can also add 

complexity to the crossing task. Left turn arrows can also 

be confusing to pedestrians.

4. Long delays at intersections: Wide intersections and

those with multiple turn lanes create a long wait for

drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. With numerous phases

needed to handle vehicle movements, pedestrians may be

required to wait for 120 seconds or longer for an opportunity to cross with the signal. Many intersections are not

equipped with technology to allow bicyclists to trigger the

signal, which may encourage cyclists to find their own way

through intersections.

5. No “friction” to reduce speeds: Much of the traffic

engineering philosophy of the last few decades has been

aimed at removing fixed objects alongside roads that

could present a risk to drivers whose vehicles left the

roadway. Indeed, removing fixed objects like trees, poles

and other structures from the roadside has shown

reductions in fatalities and injuries resulting from roadway

departure crashes. However, maintaining street trees and

other forms of visual friction can narrow the roadway environment and promote more low-speed environments.

Multilane roads developed to prioritize automobiles often lack 

appropriate bicycle facilities. As speeds and volumes increase, a simple 

shared lane does not provide bicyclists with a comfortable, safe option. 

Credit: Nicole Schneider, PBIC Image Library.

As vehicle speeds and volumes increase, so does the complexity of a pedestrian’s crossing. 

Crosswalks alone may not be sufficient to facilitate vehicle yielding. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC 

Image Library.
10

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Network Connectivity

Within the context of the conventional street hierarchy, local streets 

typically do not connect well to each 

other, arterial streets, or destinations 

such as transit stops or stores. Traffic is 

systematically corralled onto highercapacity, higher-speed collectors and 

arterials. This discontinuous pattern of 

local streets limits travel choices for 

pedestrians and bicyclists to higherrisk arterial streets that reduce both 

comfort and safety. A lack of street 

connectivity often leads to intersections that are fewer in number and 

larger in size, creating networks that 

are more difficult for nonmotorized 

users to navigate. Developments with 

curvilinear or cul-de-sac designs and 

limited connectivity can:

■ Limit the ability to travel in the

most direct path.

■ Increase the distances

to destinations.

■ Increase exposure time to other

vehicles on the road.

■ Discourage walking or bicycling

because of the added travel

distance to destinations.

Fewer people walking and bicycling 

reduces the motorist’s expectation of 

seeing these users along and crossing 

streets. These street designs have 

some negative impacts on motorists 

as well, increasing driving distance 

and time, and affecting the response 

time for emergency vehicles.

Site Design

Many existing developments do not 

provide direct, clear, and convenient 

access for bicyclists or pedestrians. 

Those wishing to access a site may 

have to determine their own path 

and navigate through driveways, 

parking lots, landscaping, and other 

Understanding Speed and Determining 

Appropriate Speed Limits

Whether your agency is working 

on designs for a new facility or 

reviewing safety problems along an 

existing corridor, vehicle speeds will 

likely be an area of focus. One important concept to understand is design 

speeds. According to the Sixth 

Edition of A Policy on Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets 

from the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO)(also known as the 

Green Book), the design speed of a 

roadway is the speed that is used to 

determine the various geometric 

design features for the road. The 

design speed is different from the 

target speed, which is the desired 

operating speed on the roadway. 

Although design speeds for rural 

roads are typically higher than for 

downtown urban streets, it is important to select design speeds that 

account for the needs of 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and other 

road users. Lower design speeds are 

consistent with features such as 

narrow street widths, on-street 

parking, tight turning radii, buffered 

sidewalks with street trees, short 

block lengths, short building 

setbacks, and street-lights. These 

features are more likely to result in 

lower operating speeds.

It is also important to select a design 

speed for the type and purpose of 

the road. For example, on a lowvolume, urban local street, it may 

be appropriate to provide narrow 

roadway widths and allow trees 

close to the road. A suburban 

arterial street might typically have 

wider lanes, trees and utilities set 

back further from the road, and no 

on-street parking. Although a design 

speed may be higher on suburban 

arterial streets (compared to urban 

local or collector streets), it is still 

important to provide pedestrian 

accommodations on such roads 

(e.g., sidewalks, appropriate street 

crossings, adequate lighting), since 

pedestrians in those situations 

should also be able to walk and 

cross streets safely.

The process of selecting speed limits 

that are appropriate for a given road 

and its current and potential users 

can be complex. To support agencies in selecting appropriate speed 

limits, FHWA produced USLIMITS2: A 

Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining 

Appropriate Speed Limit Recommendations (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/). 

The tool is a product of NCHRP 

03-67 and provides an interactive

system that encourages agencies

to consider a range of data sources

and inputs before making decisions

about speed limits.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Vision for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

11

buildings to reach their destinations. This often leads to 

confusion and conflicts with motorists, resulting in more 

crashes. This problem is especially evident at modern 

school sites where the primary consideration for access is 

motor vehicles. These sites tend not to provide a clear path 

for accessing the entrance from the street on foot or bike, 

setting up opportunities for conflicts and discouraging 

alternative travel modes.

Land Use

The practice and evolution of land use planning and 

zoning in the United States is long, complex, and beyond 

the scope of this document. However, an acknowledgement of its influence on certain issues pertaining to pedestrian and bicycle safety is helpful to understanding present 

challenges. Land use practices that took shape after World 

War II have typically favored the segregation of land uses 

(e.g., commercial and employment areas, schools, and 

residences), overall lower density developments, and the 

concentration of commercial activities along auto-dominated arterial corridors. As a result, origins and destinations 

are separated by distances that cannot be easily covered 

by foot or bike. More driving leads to higher volumes 

of traffic, leading to less comfortable environments for 

walking and bicycling.

The typical land use pattern of concentrating commercial 

activities along auto-dominated corridors often creates 

roads that are hard for pedestrians to cross. Bicyclists must 

travel along and turn across multiple lanes of traffic to

access these destinations. The safety consequences 

are evident when one analyzes crash data and 

sees that many crashes occur along higher speed 

suburban corridors with few or no pedestrian facilities and long distances between destinations.

Access Management

Access management refers to a suite of design 

options that restricts turning movements and 

consolidates access points to decrease conflicts 

between road users. Access management limits 

the number of driveways and intersections on 

arterials and highways to improve the efficiency 

and flow of motor vehicle traffic. In some cases this 

has improved safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

motorists alike, but in other instances it has had the 

unintended consequence of facilitating the design 

of larger intersections spaced far apart. These 

intersections can be difficult for pedestrians and bicyclists 

to cross because the intersections tend to be larger and 

have large numbers of turning vehicles. Pedestrians and 

bicyclists trying to cross at an intersection may have to 

travel long distances, increasing their exposure to traffic. 

People may choose to cross away from intersections rather 

than traveling long distances to access a marked crosswalk 

or traffic signal. However, innovative intersection designs, 

including roundabouts and median U-turns, may enhance 

walking and biking with fewer of these unintended consequences. These designs may feature more opportunities 

for medians and enhanced crossings, for example, and can 

be designed to facilitate lower vehicle speeds at turns.

For communities that do not limit the number of driveways and intersections, the issue of intersection size and 

spacing may not be a problem, but an excessive number 

of driveways can create another problem. Every driveway 

results in many new potential conflict points for all 

roadway users. Commercial driveways can pose even more 

risks as motor vehicle traffic may be more frequent, and 

driveways may be designed more like street intersections 

with larger intersection radii resulting in higher vehicle 

turning speeds. Many driveways along a street can also 

create a challenging walking environment, especially for 

individuals with disabilities. On high-speed, high-volume 

roadways, bicyclists may choose to ride on the sidewalk. 

Drivers exiting the driveways may not expect or look for 

higher speed bicycles on sidewalks, particularly if they are 

riding opposite of the vehicular traffic. 

Frequent driveways can be difficult to traverse by individuals with disabilities, 

and some may choose instead to travel in travel lanes. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC 

Image Library. 
12

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Strategies to Improve Safety 

There are several measures that can be taken to improve 

conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists within these 

transportation conventions previously discussed. 

Improved safety can be achieved in a variety of ways, 

including street design, network connectivity, site design, 

land use and access management improvements. 

Street Design Improvements

To make streets safer for nonmotorized users, your 

agency can focus on:

■ Managing vehicle speeds.

■ Reducing crossing distances for pedestrians.

■ Providing adequate separation between motor vehicle

traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

■ Improving visibility and conspicuity of pedestrians

and bicyclists.

■ Developing connected networks of walking and

bicycling facilities.

Achieving one or more of these improvements not only 

reduces the risk of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, but also usually improves safety for motor vehicle 

drivers and passengers. In some cases, improving bicyclist 

and pedestrian safety and convenience involves tradeoffs with aspects of motor vehicle operation. Although 

a community will be supportive of improved safety, it is 

important to educate and inform people about how and 

why certain choices are made.

To achieve these objectives, your agency may need to 

rethink or reprioritize some policies. One of these includes 

revisiting the role that motor vehicle LOS plays in driving 

project outcomes and decisions. If your agency wants to 

achieve serious safety measures, the particular LOS may 

be lower for motor vehicles than if you do not take those 

measures. Improvements in capacity can be achieved in 

other ways: by expanding the capacity of other transportation options, re-thinking land use strategies, or determining where important destinations—such as schools—

are located. Using alternative metrics to measure the 

success of the transportation system, such as travel time 

reliability, can help an agency meet goals that are more 

supportive of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

The conflict between vehicle accommodation and the 

safety of nonmotorized road users is usually considered a 

design decision, but it is also a values (policy) decision. An 

intersection can be designed with a smaller radius than 

is typically used for a selected design vehicle, thereby 

increasing pedestrian safety by reducing crossing distance 

and exposure. For example, a turning truck or bus may 

encroach in to an adjacent lane to complete the turn, but 

the turn is still physically possible. Narrower lane widths 

can usually accommodate large vehicles like trucks and 

buses while leaving space for bicycle facilities. Communities that place a high priority on bicyclist and pedestrian 

safety and convenience do more to balance the needs of 

large vehicles with the nonmotorized users in their street 

design practices and policies. This does not mean trucks, 

school buses, and fire trucks cannot physically use the 

streets—they just usually need to travel at a lower speed 

and take greater care in making turns. Transportation 

professionals are expected to carefully weigh these factors 

when making street design decisions.

Network Connectivity Improvements

Increasing street connectivity creates a safer, more pedestrian- and bicyclist-friendly transportation system by 

reducing travel distances, offering more route choices, and 

dispersing traffic across the network. Street connectivity 

with the transit network is very important. If people are to 

use transit, then their role as pedestrians or bicyclists on 

both ends of their trip is important and should be accommodated on well-connected streets. 

Connected networks are vital to nonmotorized road 

users, and your agency can do many things to improve 

the connectivity of existing networks and plan for the 

connectivity of future developments. Your agency can 

improve existing local street connectivity and circulation 

by adding sidewalks and shared use paths to connect 

dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs to other parts of the 

street network. Neighborhoods can increase the number 

of access points to and from neighborhoods and other 

destinations, so not all trips are funneled through one 

or two large intersections or access points. More neighborhood travel options means less motor vehicle traffic 

on any given street.
Chapter 2. Establishing a Vision for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety

13

Site Design Improvements

Both small-scale and large-scale developments should 

be directly accessible through a conveniently located 

sidewalk or shared use path. Many communities are 

achieving better pedestrian safety records by requiring 

businesses and developments to locate close to the 

street (with parking provided in the back) in more 

pedestrian-oriented site developments that balance 

auto access with the needs of other road users. This 

does not mean that auto access is denied; it is just 

managed more appropriately. These site design goals 

are achieved by enacting local zoning ordinances, 

which should be enforced. These principles contribute 

greatly to the safety, comfort, and aesthetics of the 

walking experience.

Land Use Improvements

Land use planning has often been considered a discipline separate from transportation planning, street 

design, and traffic engineering, and the coordination 

of land use planning processes receives insufficient 

emphasis. However, the relationship between land use 

and transportation is evident, and the responsibility 

to coordinate between the two is imperative. Your 

agency can set policies to encourage mixed-use development and require new developments to provide 

connections with the existing network. 

Access Management Improvements

One of the most important access management 

techniques includes reducing conflicts at driveways 

to improve the walking and biking environment. Some 

driveways can be closed— increasing the safety of 

both pedestrians and motorists—without impeding 

access to local businesses. Certain innovative 

intersection designs, including roundabouts and 

median U-turns, can facilitate better overall street 

connections along a corridor, while providing safer 

and more convenient options for people walking 

and biking. Other access management goals can 

work in favor of pedestrians and bicyclists within the 

context of other important planning and policy issues. 

Appropriately designed medians can control turning 

movements and help pedestrians and bicyclists 

manage their crossings.

Resources for Developing 

Safe, Comfortable and 

Connected Networks

Many agencies are shifting from building standalone bicycle lanes and sidewalks toward a more 

comprehensive approach for providing connected 

transportation walking and bicycling networks. By 

acknowledging gaps in the existing network, your 

agency can begin developing systems that allow 

people to access a variety of destinations safely, 

conveniently, and comfortably. FHWA developed 

the following resources to help agencies begin the 

process of prioritizing network improvements. 

Achieving Multimodal Networks: 

Apply Design Flexibility and 

Reducing Conflicts

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/multimodal_

networks/fhwahep16055.pdf)

Bike Network Mapping Idea Book

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/bikemap_book/)

Case Studies in Delivering Safe, 

Comfortable and Connected 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/network_report/) 
14

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Reviewing Existing Policies and 

Design Guidelines 

Agencies should review their design guidelines and policies to ensure that quality facilities are provided with both 

developer-built and new agency-built roadway projects. 

To support a multimodal approach, agencies can adopt 

policies that require a complete streets approach to transportation projects. Complete streets are developed to be 

inclusive of all road users, rather than prioritizing automobile safety and convenience. Subsequent sections of this 

guide provide a more complete list of common and effective practices that may serve as a template for reviewing 

the current agency policies and guidelines. It provides 

policies and design recommendations organized into the 

following sections:

■ Improvements along the road (on sidewalks, at

driveways, etc.).

■ Improvements for crossing the road (at midblock

locations and signalized or unsignalized intersections).

■ Transit improvements.

■ Speed management strategies.

■ Land use and site design.

There are numerous other guidelines that can be used to 

identify design and traffic management practices to incorporate into appropriate agency manuals. Periodic review 

of agency policies and design guidelines for pedestrian 

and bicyclist facilities should be a priority. Most improvements to transportation infrastructure will be gradual and 

implemented over many years as a part of future development and roadway reconstruction projects.

Closing Thoughts 

Safety plans should acknowledge the unique needs of 

pedestrians and bicyclists among road users. Each mode 

has its own needs, yet decades of planning and design 

decisions that prioritized motor vehicle travel have had 

unintended consequences on the safety of pedestrians 

and bicyclists. Safety plans should acknowledge the 

deficiencies of the transportation system and lay out a 

strategy for developing a transportation network that 

prioritizes walking and bicycling.
3

15

Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems

Safety plans should be data-driven and based on 

a complete understanding of the safety problem. 

There are many methods available for quantifying 

and understanding pedestrian and bicyclist safety, 

and your approach may depend on the types of 

data you have available. This chapter lays out 

some strategies for examining safety data and 

makes recommendations for understanding and 

quantifying safety risk.

Strategies for Identifying HighCrash or High-Risk Locations

As a percentage of their crash involvement, pedestrians 

and bicyclists are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in crashes involving motor vehicles than 

vehicle occupants or drivers. Pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes, as a percentage of total crashes, tend to be 

relatively rare, especially at particular intersections or 

segments. This makes it a challenge to understand the 

conditions that contribute to crashes and to identify the 

locations most in need of improvements to help achieve 

the largest safety benefits. In addition, the types of data –

beyond crash data – that may be needed for robust

pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis are often unavailable. In particular, many agencies may not have robust

inventories of their infrastructure and may lack pedestrian

and bicycle counts (or exposure) data. The next section

will describe crash and other types of data that are useful

for pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis and screening.

There are two basic approaches to identifying 

and treating locations to help reduce future 

crashes and injuries:

1) High-Crash, or reactive, approach.

2) Systemic, or risk-based, which is considered a

proactive approach. 

The reactive, high-crash approach relies on the assumption that if crashes have occurred at a location, they will 

continue to occur there. However, history and statistical 

trends have demonstrated that crashes in fact tend to 

shift around and what was once a high-crash location 

may tend to experience fewer crashes in the future. This 

makes it a challenge to prioritize on a cost-benefit basis 

since crash frequencies alone tend to provide poor 

prediction. There have also been challenges in using this 

approach for pedestrian and bicycle safety analysis and 

prioritization since there tend to be few locations that 

can be categorized as high-crash. Pedestrian and bicyclist 

crashes especially tend to be widely dispersed, affecting 

the ability to perform either a high-crash or a risk-based 

assessment, at least based on local data. 

Several guidebooks are underway at the time of publication, to help agencies tackle or adapt to these barriers 

to enable both a more robust high expected-crash 

location prioritization process, and a systemic risk prioritization process. 

■ The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) ( http://www.

highwaysafetymanual.org) provides guidance on crash

prediction modeling that ideally would be used to

predict crash hotspots. The HSM method accounts

for traffic volume trends and the tendency of crashes to

move around somewhat randomly over time. To

implement these methods for pedestrian or bicycle

crash prediction, agencies need both traffic volume and

pedestrian or bicycle volume data, which tend to be less

readily available than motorized volume data. Agencies

may find the HSM challenging to use in the BPSAP

process due to the limited amount of pedestrian and

bicycle safety performance functions.

■ The Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash Locations

(forthcoming from FHWA) will help agencies with

alternative metrics and methods using spatial analysis

tools, crash, roadway and other typically available data

to serve as surrogates for pedestrian and bicycle activity,

to identify and prioritize high pedestrian or bicycle crash

hotspots.

■ For agencies that have pedestrian or bicycle volumes,

the HSM method using empirical Bayes estimation
16

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

is preferred, and is deemed to be most effective 

at predicting future crash locations (considering 

where prior crashes have occurred, traffic, and other 

predictive factors). 

■ While there may be some high pedestrian or bicycle

crash locations (previous or expected based on

predictions) in dense urban areas where many people

walk or bike, treating only these areas may still leave

many locations vulnerable to future crashes and fails to

address the on-going safety challenges faced by

pedestrians and bicyclists trying to travel in various

environments. These locations are often widely-dispersed

in less dense environments but with high volumes and

speed of automobile traffic and, frequently, fewer

pedestrian facilities. The risk per number of pedestrians or

bicyclists tends to be higher. Increasingly, jurisdictions are

seeking methods of identifying and screening locations

such as these or other types of locations that may be at

high-risk of future injury and fatal crashes over a period of

time. The National Cooperative Highway Research

Program (NCHRP) Project 17-73 aims to create a Systemic 

Pedestrian Safety Analysis Guidebook to describe a process and

give case examples of how agencies may implement a

robust risk-based approach to pedestrian safety. While no

comparable guide is underway for bicyclists, several

jurisdictions have applied a similar process for bicycles,

including the City of Seattle.1The ActiveTrans Priority Tool

(http://www. pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_apt.cfm), which was

created based on NCHRP 07-17, can assist agencies in

identifying and prioritizing areas or locations for

improvements. FHWA is developing a scalable risk

assessment methodology to standardize approaches for

estimating pedestrian and bicyclist safety risks based on

exposure. The methodology will be available in July of

2018.

High-crash and risk-based methods are both important 

and complementary to each other, as each alone has 

limitations. Agencies may need to allocate funding investment according to anticipated benefits from implementing measures through the two types or hybrid type 

of safety processes.

Information Needed to Identify 

and Understand Safety Problems

Crash, roadway, traffic, and other data are essential to 

identify pedestrian and bicycle safety deficiencies and

1 Thomas, L., Lan, B., Sanders, L., Frackleton, A., Gardner, S., and Hintze, M. (2017). In Pursuit of Safety: Systemic Bicycle Crash Analysis in 

Seattle, WA. TRB 96th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers. 17-06840. Transportation Research Board. Washington, DC. 

to select and prioritize the appropriate improvements to 

make conditions safer for pedestrians and other roadway 

users. More data and higher quality data will typically give 

an agency more tools to identify and address safety problems. However, an agency may need to prioritize its data 

needs depending on the type(s) of crash histories in the 

jurisdiction and the types of safety approaches to yield the 

greatest payoffs in terms of system wide improvements 

in safety and mobility. For example, agencies pursuing a 

systemic approach will want to focus on the data types 

that can help identify risks associated with fatalities and 

serious injuries. Agencies should also consider how data 

improvements will help meet the needs for safety data in 

the future. In some instances, improvements in databases 

or more accurate data will enhance the ability to identify 

pedestrian deficiencies.

Developing relationships with other departments can enhance data quality 

and may reveal other data sources you can incorporate into your analysis. 

Credit: VHB. 

In thinking about the types of data to collect and analyze, it 

helps if practitioners have a basic understanding of the risks 

associated with pedestrian or bicycle collisions, which may 

be very different from collisions that only involve motor 

vehicles. As your agency identifies data types, it can form 

partnerships between agencies to make sure all data are 

incorporated into your safety analysis. Different partners 

typically collect different types of data, but these are much 

more useful when used in combination than on their own. 

Data analysis presents opportunities for multi-disciplinary 

collaboration across agencies.

Common Types of Safety Data 

Crashes are an important source of assessing risk, since 

these incidents represent the ultimate exposure and 
Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems

17

multiple failures of the system of interacting contributing 

causes to prevent a crash. Crashes can be used to help 

identify priority locations, road types and configuration,

environmental conditions, and ages and conditions of those 

involved in the crash. If all of these data types are collected 

through crash reporting, and are relatively complete and 

accurate, they can provide useful context for understanding 

safety problems. In addition, some jurisdictions generate or 

collect the locations of crashes in a geographic information 

system (GIS) or spatial coordinate system, although others 

use different methods of assigning locations. 

Crash data should be linkable with roadway inventory data 

and traffic volume data through a common locating or location key framework. With a GIS-based location-referencing 

system for these data types, it is also possible to generate 

linkages with other data types described below. The 

self-evaluation conducted as part of your Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan likely generated an 

inventory of needs with respect to curb ramps and sidewalk 

repairs, among others. Linking crash data to these features 

can help inform you of areas in need of improvement.

If there are too few crashes to gain a full understanding of 

the issues and safety needs, it may be because several or 

many of the types of risks below are so high that people 

choose not to walk and bike when they have a choice, and 

there may be the presence of extreme barriers to walking 

and cycling. While few crashes is a good thing, it is not good 

if the lack of crashes represents an environment that is 

hostile to walking and bicycling.

Data types from different sources can aid in understanding 

these risks locally, and are especially useful for a systemic 

risk-based approach to safety. These data usually available 

do not directly measure the events or behaviors that led to 

the crashes, but provide a way of understanding the likely 

chain of events and contributing factors that could be 

addressed through countermeasures and policies. Consider 

these risks within the following categories: 

■ Volume and Type of Road Users – The more motor

vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists, the greater the 

exposure or opportunities for conflict and crashes 

(although the relationships are not linear). It is also 

important to consider road users and characteristics 

beyond just their role in the system. Demographic factors 

such as age and ability can help you understand safety 

problems and solutions.

■ Time or Distance Exposed to Traffic – Wider roads and

longer distances between destinations mean that

pedestrians and bicyclists spend more time exposed to

traffic at crossings or traveling along the road with greater

potential for conflicts that may lead to crashes.

■ Conflicting Movements and Designs – Streets and

roads and their operations that put multiple users on

conflicting paths at junctions or crossings or sharing space

along a roadway may lead to more crashes.

The transportation system inherently serves to move

multiple road users along and across the same space, but

risks are introduced as streets are shared and different

road users mix in the same space. Lower speed roads are

shared more safely (at least at less risk of severe injuries)

than higher speed ones. However, the speed

of motorized traffic in comparison with walking speed

means that virtually any built-up area where pedestrians

should be able to walk might benefit from sidewalks or

shared use paths.

■ Speed – Operating speeds are strongly associated with

the number of fatal and injury crashes on a facility, while

impact speed is associated with the degree of injuries

received in a specific crash. Speed affects the ability

of drivers (or bicyclists) to avoid a crash. Speed is also

associated with drivers’ tendencies to stop or yield at

uncontrolled locations: as operating speed increases,

yielding rates tend to decrease.

■ Conspicuity – Pedestrians and cyclists typically travel

along the edge of roadways or on separate facilities when

not crossing a road, and as a result, drivers are less likely to

notice them before any maneuvers that may lead

to a conflict. Pedestrians and bicyclists are also much

smaller in profile and may be less conspicuous in the

daytime and at night.

■ Visibility – Being visible to each other involves more than 

just conspicuity. Buildings, parking or bus lanes, multiple 

traffic lanes, curves and other geometric design and sight 

distance factors, along with how roadways and

intersections and other crossings are or are not lit at night

are just some of the factors that affect the ability of drivers

and pedestrians or bicyclists to observe and give way

to each other.

■ Behaviors – Driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist behaviors such 

as exceeding limits or driving too fast for conditions; 

failure to yield; failure to obey traffic controls; impairments; 

and distractions can all compound the above risks and 

increase the chances of a collision in the final causal web 

of events and conditions. Specific behaviors such as 

running to catch a bus might also play a role in crashes in 

neighborhoods where transit use is common.
18

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

As they point out on their Vision Zero website (http://www.

seattle.gov/visionzero), the Seattle Department of Transportation is “kind of into data.” The City’s commitment to a 

data-driven road safety approach led to their development of a systemic, risk-based analysis of safety problems 

throughout the City. Examining crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists between 2007 and 2014, the City and 

its consultants were able to isolate risk factors associated 

with crashes involving these vulnerable road users. 

The first part of Seattle’s analysis reviewed more traditional 

factors associated with pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. 

Around 75 percent of bicyclist and 80 percent of pedestrian crashes occurred on arterials. Pedestrians were more 

likely to be struck at signalized intersections, while just 

under half of the bicyclists involved in crashes were struck 

at a non-intersection location.

A more proactive approach allowed the City to look 

beyond crash data and incorporate other variables like 

roadway characteristics, land use, pedestrian and bicyclist 

volume data, and other sources to get a handle on risk 

factors that seem to contribute to or be associated with 

crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians. By identifying these other factors, identified in Figure 2 below, the 

City was able to determine that areas with commercial 

development, transit stops, and downhill approaches to 

intersections may be at risk of crashes. The City is wellpositioned to address these risk factors proactively, rather 

than waiting for crashes to occur.

To learn more about the methods and findings, please 

visit the City of Seattle Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis

(http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/beSuperSafe/

BicyclePedestrianSafetyAnalysis.pdf).

Figure 2. Seattle Vision Zero data for bicycle and pedestrian safety analysis. The City of Seattle used a variety of data types to perform its safety 

analysis. Credit: Seattle Department of Transportation. 

Risk-Based Safety Analysis in Seattle
Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems

19

To develop its safety action plan, Safe Mobility Santa Ana, 

California program staff sought to understand 

the factors that contributed to pedestrian and bicyclist 

crashes in the City. As a starting point, they began to 

analyze collisions based on factors like roadway type, 

injury severity, and presence of infrastructure like traffic 

signals. An example of their crash analysis is provided in 

Figure 3. As documented in their findings, the City found 

that arterial streets (which accounted for only 20 percent 

of the roadway network) experienced 60 percent of 

pedestrian and 68 percent of bicycle crashes. They 

also found that more than a third of crashes involving 

pedestrians and bicyclists occurred at signalized 

intersections, despite the fact that only 9 percent of the 

City’s intersections were signalized. 

The next step was to conduct a more complete 

assessment of the factors and circumstances that 

contributed to the crashes occurring at these locations. 

By using data that provided this level of detail, the 

City was able to determine the top collision types for 

pedestrians and bicyclists, which brought them one step 

closer to understanding the locations at the highest risk 

of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes.

To learn more about their methods and read the 

complete findings, please visit the Safe Mobility 

Santa Ana plan (http://www.santa-ana.org/smsa/documents/

SafeMobilitySantaAnaFINAL.pdf).

Figure 3. Santa Ana crash type identification example. Credit: City of Santa Ana.

Safe Mobility Santa Ana Collision Analysis
20

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

If plan goals include encouraging more walking and 

bicycling, then pedestrian and bicyclist surveys and other 

forms of public input are also desirable. Public stakeholders, including community members, advocates, and 

individuals with disabilities, may have important knowledge of safety problems that are not identifiable through 

crash data, but it is important for both safety and equity 

that public input be conducted in such a way as to gather 

information from all community types. In addition, to 

encourage more travel by these modes, it is very important to address public perceptions of safety since perceptions of safety can serve as a barrier to walking and biking.

Different types of data or information-gathering processes 

may be needed to assess these different types of risks 

for pedestrians and bicyclists. Except for crash data, the 

types of data usually available do not measure the events, 

behaviors, and causal factors that directly led up to the 

crash, but are deemed risk factors for collisions. Some 

data types may also be associated with multiple types of 

risk (and consequently are more important to measure). 

For example, transit activity likely helps capture risk 

exposure based on volumes of pedestrians and cyclists 

who use transit, but several crash and activity prediction studies suggest that transit activity may also reflect 

other risks possibly associated with behaviors, complexity 

of maneuvers around transit stops, and visibility among 

the different modes. 

To simplify the understanding of data types and uses, 

Table 1 presents key types and how they can be used in 

either a systemic risk-based or traditional hotspot analysis 

approach. Forthcoming guides, including the previously 

mentioned FHWA scalable risk assessment methodology 

and the results of NCHRP 17-73, will provide more information on identifying safety problem locations through 

either a more traditional hotspot approach or systemic 

risk-based approach.

Types of Areas to Identify 

Quantifying pedestrian and bicyclist safety risk, and using 

these risks to identify locations where safety improvements are needed, is an important process that requires 

careful consideration of the available data. Identifying and 

addressing only those locations that have a demonstrated 

history of crashes will miss an important opportunity to 

focus attention on high-risk locations where crashes can 

be prevented. For this reason, safety plans should use their 

data to identify the following locations.

Intersections and 

Segments

You will likely identify 

several high-crash locations 

like intersection or shorter 

segments in your analysis. 

For spot locations, solutions 

are most likely to involve 

operational or construction changes, but they could incorporate behavioral programs. Operational or construction 

countermeasures include anything from a change in crosswalk striping or lane configuration to construction projects 

such as curb extensions, realignment of an intersection 

approach, or adding a vertical or curb separation for 

bicycle lanes. Education and enforcement solutions could 

include spot enforcement of drivers-yield-to-pedestrian 

laws or education materials aimed at well-defined user

group. However, these behavioral programs can achieve 

widespread deployment with high-visibility campaigns 

and media attention.

Corridors

Assess the entire corridor 

for problems that occur 

along multiple segments 

or at subsequent intersection locations. For analysis 

purposes, study areas can 

be subdivided into roadway 

segments of 0.5 to 5 miles (0.8 to 8 kilometers) in length. 

Crashes at first may seem to occur in undefined, almost 

random locations. A more thorough analysis may reveal 

patterns such as crashes occurring primarily along bus 

routes, at transit stops, or at night. What seemed like an 

insurmountable problem can be tackled systematically 

and comprehensively by focusing one or two countermeasures throughout the corridor. For example, in the case of 

a predominance of nighttime crashes, improving illumination throughout the corridor may solve many problems. 

In the case of transit-related crashes, working with the 

local transit provider to assess all bus stops may lead to 

simple solutions such as relocating, adding, or eliminating 

some stops, and implementing countermeasures to assist 

pedestrians in crossing the street at a limited number of 

critical locations.
Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems

21

Data Types Risk Types Location Types

Crash Data

Location

Contributing factors and crash types

Environmental and temporal factors

Time or Distance Exposed to Traffic

Behaviors

Speed

Conspicuity

Intersections and Segments

Corridors

Areas

System-wide Problems

Behavior and Observational Data

Intersection conflicts

Motor vehicle speeds

Citations and convictions

Use of bicycle lights/reflectors

Behaviors

Speed

Conspicuity

Corridors

Areas

System-wide Problems

Volume and Count Data

Traffic volumes and projections

Pedestrian crossing counts or estimates

Bicycle counts and estimates

Volume and Type of Road Users

Time or Distance Exposed to Traffic

Intersections and Segments

Corridors

Roadway and Inventory Data

Roadway characteristics (number of 

lanes, width, median or turn lanes)

Pedestrian and bicycle facility and signal 

inventories (presence, type, condition)

Lighting

Parking location and type

Intersection characteristics (number and 

type of lanes, curb radius, signal timing)

Speed Limits

Time or Distance Exposed to Traffic

Conflicting Movements and Designs

Conspicuity

Visibility

Speed

Intersections and Segments

Corridors

Areas

Land Use Data

Land use type

Density and mix of uses

Building volume/density and setback

Volume and Type of Road Users

Time or Distance Exposed to Traffic

Corridors

Areas

Census and Population Data

National Household Travel Survey

American Community Survey

Vehicle ownership

Mode Share by Road User Type

Commute Mode Share

Areas

Transit Data

Routes

Stop or station locations and features

Ridership

Number of buses

National Transit Database

Volume and Type of Road Users

Conflicting Movements and Designs

Intersections and Segments

Corridors

Areas

Table 1. Pedestrian and bicycle crash data and potential risks. 
22

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Observational studies and counts can provide your 

agency with valuable information not captured in 

crash reports and other traditional safety data sources. 

When conducting these studies, consider the following 

step-by-step approach:

Step 1: Decide on Types of Studies to Perform

The type of study you perform will be determined by 

what you want to know. Studies may include collecting 

data on pedestrian or bicycle volumes, traffic speeds, 

gaps in motor vehicle traffic, conflicts between different 

road users, or behaviors like yielding. 

Step 2: Determine Study Location and Scope

When conducting an observational study it is important 

to identify the exact location of where the data is to be 

collected. Observational studies can be time-intensive, 

so it is important to pick the right location. Typically 

your study will be limited to a particular intersection or a short segment, where one person or a video 

camera can collect the needed observations from a 

single vantage point.

Step 3: General Observation of the Study Site 

and Road Users

Before starting the actual data collection, data collectors 

should familiarize themselves with the study location and 

note the types of signal control, the location of crosswalks, presence of bicycle facilities, and features such as 

sight distance restrictions.

Step 4: Develop a Data Collection Plan

It is important to create a plan for what type of data will 

be collected and during what time period. Volume/count 

and behavior data should focus on the time of day or 

day of week when a concern exists. This could include 

times with high or low pedestrian or bicyclist volumes, 

depending on when pedestrian crashes occurred. 

Studies at schools should be conducted during school 

arrival or departure times and the duration may be 

limited to the start.

Step 5: Collect the Data

Collect data based on the type of study you are 

performing. A few examples include:

■ Count and volume data can be collected with a range

of technologies. The PBIC page on count programs

includes resources to assist with counts:

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_counts.cfm.

■ Behavior studies require a standard protocol for

defining and measuring things like conflicts and

violations. Make sure those coding these observations

standardize their definitions of what they are observing

for consistency.

■ Gap and speed studies can be performed using a range 

of technologies and platforms, and may be important 

for measuring for signal or crossing warrants. 

Step 6: Prepare Data for Analysis

Data analysis will depend largely on the type of data 

you are collecting, but often the data you collect can 

reveal cursory results to inform your decision making. 

It is important to maintain the data you collect, as well 

as your plans and protocols, so you can replicate the 

process during evaluation.

Conducting Observational Studies and Counts
Chapter 3. Understanding Safety Problems

23

Targeted Areas

Use geographic and 

spatial analysis to identify high-crash areas 

within your agency. It is 

important that statewide 

crash databases allow for 

geographically mapping 

crashes for analyses purposes. 

For targeted area problems occurring throughout a 

neighborhood, take a similar approach to that outlined 

in corridor problems. Are there patterns, similarities, or a 

predominance of one crash type? Engineering improvements can include area-wide traffic calming to reduce 

motorist speed, the installation of sidewalks to separate 

traffic, or streetlights to enhance conspicuity. In some 

cases, changes in local, regional, or State policy may be 

necessary to allow or promote these improvements. 

Consider overlaying your crash data with crime data, as 

outlined in Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety 

(DDACTS) (https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/ddacts/811185_DDACTS_

OpGuidelines.pdf), which can allow law enforcement agencies 

to more effectively deploy resources.

System Wide 

Problems

For a problem that is 

common throughout 

an entire jurisdiction, 

agencies should ensure 

that their policies, plans, 

and engineering design 

guidelines adequately embrace the appropriate countermeasures. Problems in spot locations, targeted areas, 

corridors, and jurisdictions can often reveal a fundamental design flaw in the roadway; solutions then include 

changes in design guidelines. Chapter 5 provides guidance for selecting design solutions and countermeasures 

that should be incorporated into the agency’s design 

manuals, practices, and procedures so all future road projects are designed with these safety features at the onset.

Closing Thoughts 

There are many strategies and methods available for 

conducting safety analyses. Your own analysis may depend 

on the data you have available. A data-driven safety plan 

will look not only at crash history, but will include a proactive assessment of risk factors to identify opportunities 

for safety improvements where they are most needed. 

Data-driven safety analysis requires input from numerous 

partners, since each agency may have a different set 

of data to share. 

Examples of Safety Data 

Analysis

Numerous examples of safety data analysis are available 

to serve as models for agencies interested in performing 

their own analyses. Several of the plans and documents 

listed below provide recommendations for using data to 

identify safety problems.

City of Seattle Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis: The analysis 

conducted for the Seattle Department of Transportation 

examined pedestrian and bicycle crashes between 2007 

and 2014 to identify common crash types and safety 

factors associated with both high-crash and high-risk 

locations across the City. The findings provide a basis 

for interventions and programs supported by the City’s 

Vision Zero program. (http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/

Departments/beSuperSafe/BicyclePedestrianSafetyAnalysis.pdf)

Los Angeles Vision Zero Safety Study: The safety study examined all crashes occurring in Los Angeles between 2003 

and 2013. They identified common crash factors and 

characteristics, and identified a priority network of corridors that will be addressed through the City’s Vision Zero

program. (https://view.joomag.com/vision-zero-safety-study/0065798

001485405769?short)

Florida Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategic Safety Plan: The statewide safety plan for Florida analyzed factors from 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes occurring between 2007 

and 2011. The study revealed factors related to age, 

location, alcohol involvement, and temporal factors. The 

findings helped develop components of the State’s 

comprehensive plan to improve pedestrian and bicycle 

safety, focusing on the top ten priority counties. 

(http://www.fdot.gov/safety/6-Resources/

FloridaPedestrianandBicycleStrategicSafetyPlan.pdf) 

4

25

Chapter 4. Involving Stakeholders

In addition to being data-driven, safety plans should 

also be community-driven. The plan you develop is a 

reflection of the community’s goals and vision, and 

you should take steps to ensure that all members of 

the community have opportunities to provide their 

input. This often means looking beyond traditional 

forms of public engagement and proactively 

soliciting input from traditionally underrepresented 

voices. With an effective public outreach strategy, 

your community will feel invested in the plan’s 

recommendations and outcomes.

Stakeholders include people who have a stake or an 

interest in a certain policy, program, or project and 

may be affected by its implementation. Stakeholder 

involvement is an essential element in creating publicly 

supported and trusted policies, programs, and projects 

that reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes in an effort 

to decrease serious injuries and fatalities on public 

roadways while also meeting other community goals. 

Public participation is not an end in itself, but part of a 

collaborative process to achieve a transportation system 

that works for all road users. Public engagement can help 

create trust and credibility with stakeholders. The public 

should be included throughout the planning process, 

and the participation of all interested and affected 

parties should be prioritized, especially individuals with 

disabilities and traditionally underserved or underrepresented populations.

Public stakeholders should be viewed as useful partners 

in bringing helpful information and judgment to the 

table. They often are the on-the-ground scouts who 

can identify problems, needs, and opportunities. Since 

the professional staff cannot be everywhere at all times, 

the public can serve as additional eyes and ears and be 

effective resources.

By incorporating mapping exercises and other interactive elements into 

an input session, you can encourage community members to share their 

ideas for what could come out of the community’s safety plan. Credit: Dan 

Burden, PBIC Image Library. 

The extent of the processes in which local agencies 

involve the public will vary according to their size and 

budget. Some communities are better equipped to 

implement these strategies while others may not have 

the resources and staff to implement all the strategies, so 

some modification and tailoring of these recommendations may be required. Keep in mind that input you 

gather from stakeholders can be used to inform different 

types of plans and programs. If possible, consider a 

combined approach to public engagement so you can 

use input from stakeholders to inform different plans and 

programs. For example, if you plan to complete a school 

transportation master plan, a comprehensive transportation plan, and a pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan, 

your community should take advantage of the public and 

stakeholder input process so you aren’t asking the public 

to provide their input on three separate plans. Receiving 

input on stakeholder priorities and incorporating that 

feedback into each plan can be an effective method for 

gathering feedback efficiently.

State and local agencies operate and relate to the public 

differently, so some modifications of the recommendations in this report will be needed to accommodate these 

differences.
26

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Stakeholders to Involve

Stakeholders include several distinct groups:

1. Individual residents.

2. Community and advocacy organizations.

3. Public employees, officials, and

agencies (including first responders and

public health agencies).

4. The private sector (including local

business owners and developers).

5. The media. 

All have a unique role to play and require a 

different strategy for involvement.

Individual Residents

Requests from individual residents are an 

important way for agencies to learn about 

problems at specific locations. Typically, residents will contact agencies with a request 

for a particular treatment such as a marked 

crosswalk or bike lane. While residents 

may or may not have asked for the correct 

solution, they are likely to have identified a

problem. Sometimes, the problem residents 

perceive is different than an analysis of data 

reveals. Consequently, the first step is to 

figure out the problem that the resident 

is trying to solve. Sometimes it is obvious, 

other times it may require further communication with the public, a field visit, and an

engineering study.

Responding to these requests can be a timeconsuming task. Agencies should develop 

procedures for quickly determining which 

requests deserve a higher level of attention. Time and money are often best spent 

addressing the problems that are most likely 

to reduce the potential for crashes, whether 

those are high-crash or high-risk locations. 

Online tools are available to help agencies 

collect this sort of input from residents and 

create a more formal list of problem sites. 

Using the collective memory of the agency 

with some available data, it is often possible 

to prioritize the requests and identify those 

Identifying State and Federal 

Partners and Stakeholders

City and town representatives may have a good handle on the 

stakeholders and partners in their local communities, but may 

be less familiar with resources at the State-level. The list below 

will provide you with a quick reference for finding State-level 

resources and partners who can assist in developing plans and 

supporting programs. 

State Departments of Transportation

Every State’s Department of Transportation assigns at least one 

person to serve as the Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator. This person can be a valuable resource to help identify 

State resources, funding streams, and data that can help support 

your local programs. The PBIC maintains a database of contact 

information for these Coordinators and other State-specific information at http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/state.cfm. 

Highway Safety Offices

Though they go by different names in different States, the 

Highway Safety Office in your State can link you to valuable 

resources to help support education, enforcement, data analysis, 

and other behavioral campaigns and programs. The Governors 

Highway Safety Association maintains a list of each State’s safety 

office with links to their programs: http://www.ghsa.org/about/shsos.

FHWA Division Offices

FHWA works collaboratively with State and local agencies 

through its Division Offices. There is one Division Office in each 

State, and additional resources are available through the FHWA 

Resource Center and the Federal Lands Highway Division Offices. 

A complete list of Division Offices and contacts is available at 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm. 

NHTSA Regional Offices

Like FHWA, NHTSA provides support to State and local agencies 

through field offices distributed into ten regions around the 

country. These regional offices work with partners within State 

DOTs, State Highway Safety Offices, and other organizations to 

provide support for pedestrian and bicycle programs. You can 

find your NHTSA Regional Office contact by visiting 

https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa. 
Chapter 4. Involving Stakeholders

27

that require further analysis. Though resident requests 

and complaints should be considered as an important 

data source, agencies should not make improvements 

solely based on resident input. In some cases, neighborhoods most in need of safety improvements are not 

directly connected or aware of the appropriate channels 

for reporting problems. If government agencies have not 

been responsive to community or neighborhood needs 

in the past, those communities may not proactively reach 

out with their requests. Using a data-driven approach, 

or one that designates outreach specifically to reach these 

communities of concern, will ensure that safety 

improvements aren’t deployed only in neighborhoods 

that are most vocal.

Community Organizations

Community organizations can refer to several broad coalitions or interest groups (such as advisory boards, service 

groups, and faith-based organizations) and neighborhood 

groups where people are members by virtue of living or 

having a business in a certain neighborhood. Working with 

local neighborhood associations is another excellent way 

to get a better product while building support for agency 

policies, programs, projects, and funding. Geographicallybased organizations or historically established neighborhoods may represent core stakeholders who should be 

included in transportation decisions and planning initiatives. Also included in this category are various advocacy 

and non-profit organizations. All these groups can play 

a critical role in creating a better walking and bicycling environment. 

Advisory Boards

State and local agencies should form an advisory board to 

facilitate ongoing public input. Meeting times, places, and 

frequencies will vary depending on whether it is a State 

or local advisory board. Statewide advisory boards tend to 

only meet several times a year—often at locations around 

the State to accommodate its members. Local advisory 

boards usually meet monthly, often at the same location. 

It is preferable to have separate pedestrian and bicycle 

boards so that pedestrian boards can focus solely on 

pedestrian issues. If this can’t be achieved, measures need 

to be made to ensure that both the pedestrian and bicycle 

modes get equal attention. Creating and running an effective advisory board requires a thoughtful, purposeful, and 

informed strategy. 

Engaging directly with community members and stakeholders will provide 

your agency with critical feedback and input to your safety action plan. 

Credit: VHB.

Advocacy and Nonprofit Groups

These organizations may represent a spectrum of interests, 

from promoting walking or advocating for the rights of 

people with varying disabilities, to protecting the environment or encouraging bicycle facility development. 

Your community likely has a local group that organizes 

casual bicycle rides, and its members can provide valuable input about existing conditions and needs. Often, 

these groups will have an interest in promoting safety 

in accordance with their overall objectives but may in 

other cases be opposed to certain changes. Agencies 

should be aware of these groups and work to include 

them in the public involvement process, forming partnerships when applicable.

Public Employees, Officials, and Agencies

Public employees, elected officials, and local agencies are 

also stakeholders, but their level of participation in the 

public involvement process may differ, depending on 

the level at which the safety action plan is meant to be 

implemented. A State, Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO), county, or other similar government’s regional plan 

will most likely address these stakeholders in a different 

manner than local plans will. Public agencies are important stakeholders to the extent that the policies, projects, 

and programs developed in the plan affect their areas 

of responsibility. For example, a major arterial project is 

likely to have a significant impact on area drainage and 

therefore will require involvement and buy-in from the 

agency that manages surface water runoff. The same will 

be true for all major public and private utilities. Transit 
28

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

agencies are an important stakeholder group for projects 

related to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and safety near 

and at transit stops. Public health agencies may also take 

an interest in promoting pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

and be able to provide valuable resources and partnership opportunities. It is in the States’ and localities’ interest 

to build positive, working relationships with these individuals and agencies.

Private Sector

The private sector includes individual business owners as 

well as property owners and developers. Members of the 

private sector have an interest in the built environment 

from several perspectives: as members of the community, from an investment standpoint, and as users of the 

environment (e.g., employees or customers). Some will be 

interested in investing more—they may offer to provide 

financial resources to make improvements or help with 

maintenance. Many businesses are important pedestrian 

generators that contribute to the life of a street and can 

affect a street’s walkability or bikeability. It is valuable to 

include these business owners when implementing a 

pedestrian or bicycle safety action plan.

There are regulatory tools that impact the private sector, 

such as zoning or building regulations. Private individuals 

will be interested in participating in discussions that 

propose to make changes that will impact them as well.

Involving the business community may require a 

different approach than traditional public participation 

methods. Members of the private sector may not come 

to public meetings but respond better on a one-on-one 

basis or in forums dedicated to only their participation where they will get a chance to meet and network 

with elected leaders.

The Media

Media outlets have an interest in public welfare and 

information. Good working relationships with the media 

contribute to more effective pedestrian safety programs. 

By developing strong channels of communication with 

media contacts, news outlets are able to provide a more 

informed, accurate report on the issues and help reinforce 

important safety messages. Mechanisms for engaging 

media include, but are not limited to: press releases, news 

conferences, media events launching a pedestrian or 

bicycle safety effort like enforcement operations, and an 

invitation from law enforcement via a Ride Along program. 

By including the media as a stakeholder group, State and 

local agencies make them part of the solution and avoid 

potential negative or ill-informed media coverage. They 

will gain more accurate publicity to spread awareness of 

safety issues as well attention to what is being done at the 

State and local levels.

Engaging with business owners in the public input process will ensure that 

recommendations that are included in your plan have will not be a surprise 

down the road. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC Image Library.

A Resident’s Guide 

for Creating Safer 

Communities for Walking 

and Biking

Your community may have residents, organizations, 

advocates, and others who would like to engage 

with transportation decision makers. The FHWA’s 

A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking 

and Biking provides a framework for community 

engagement and helps non-professionals navigate 

transportation planning, design, and implementation 

processes. The guide features tips and strategies to 

help community members become more effective in 

communicating their interests and needs.

A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for 

Walking and Biking 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/

residents_guide2014_final.pdf) 
Chapter 4. Involving Stakeholders

29

Principles and Strategies for 

Involving Stakeholders 

Your strategies for facilitating public input will depend 

largely on local context and the needs of your community. There are likely stakeholders in your community that 

require unique, tailored approaches, and it is important 

to seek out opportunities to engage with all members of 

the community. The principles below are relevant to all 

communities, and can be applied in a context specific way 

when reaching out to different stakeholders.

Provide Quality Information

Part of the strategy for working with stakeholders is to 

provide information that invites input. Informed residents, 

business owners, and other groups are more likely to identify real problems and provide more constructive feedback 

on project proposals. Public-facing websites and dashboards containing project details are essential, and email 

or social media outreach may also be effective methods 

of communication. However, web-based information 

may not reach every audience. For some audiences, 

providing information directly using mail or phone calls 

may be the best way to communicate important information about a project.

Include State, Regional, and Local Agencies

This activity is important for both local agencies and for 

State projects on State roads. Most policy, program, and 

project initiatives will be an activity for local agencies 

since they involve local residential and arterial streets. 

This, however, will vary based on location. In some States, 

most arterial streets are State roads; in some big cities, 

very few arterials are State roads; in small towns, it is not 

uncommon for the two or three major roads running 

through the city to be State roads. In a few States, almost 

all roads, even local roads, are State roads. Make sure all 

concerned agencies are involved.

Consider Neighborhood Plans

Neighborhood (or sector) plans can be an excellent way 

to establish community priorities and generate support 

for pedestrian- and bicycle-related safety improvements. 

Many cities have named neighborhood districts, each 

with its own neighborhood plan. For example, Evanston, 

IL, uses area plans to focus on zones like neighborhoods 

that benefit from unique approaches. Numerous corridor 

and neighborhood plans identify priorities and projects to 

improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment (https://

www.cityofevanston.org/government/departments/community-development/

planning-zoning/area-planning). Transportation agencies should 

always look to these plans for guidance when developing 

policies, projects, and programs because these plans will 

only have value if they are used and referenced. 

Establish Venues for Stakeholder Participation

Stakeholders should have multiple ways to participate. 

Outreach should include opportunities to attend public 

meetings, emails, telephone calls, and filling out comment

forms. Opportunities exist to expand public input on social 

media platforms, which some of your target audience 

may use. These approaches will result in a broader, more 

diverse group of residents and businesses providing input 

that will increase project acceptance and success.

Instead of presenting plans and listening to feedback, consider providing 

unique ways for participants to get involved in the process. Credit: Dan 

Burden, PBIC Image Library.

Prioritize Equity

No matter the community you represent, there are likely 

disadvantaged or underserved populations who have 

a real stake in transportation decisions. In many cases, 

individuals with disabilities or populations with limited 

financial resources are more dependent on the transit, 

pedestrian and bicycle network than other members of 

the community. All too often, these individuals are left out 

of planning and project development processes because 

they may not attend public meetings or feel engaged 
30

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

with plans that are developed. In many cases, agencies 

make no effort to include them, further distancing these 

communities from the decision making process. Building 

an equitable approach into your public participation 

strategy is essential. The white paper, Pursuing Equity in 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/

cms/downloads/PBIC_WhitePaper_Equity.pdf), provides an overview of this issue and presents strategies for proactive 

engagement techniques.

Hold Public Meetings or Events

Public meetings and events can be an excellent way to 

solicit public input on plans and projects. They require 

structure and control in order to make progress and 

remain focused. Public meetings may have different 

formats or elements, including open houses and meetand-greets that are less formal. Sometimes more formal 

presentations of project details and impacts are needed, 

and there should always be plenty of time devoted to 

hearing resident concerns and opinions.

While public meetings have value, it is also important 

for residents to have other opportunities for providing 

feedback. Not everyone is willing or able to attend a 

public meeting. Sometimes hosting forums at different 

times (e.g., weekends) or providing childcare can help. 

Other ways of soliciting general input—such as charrettes, walking meetings, bicycle rides, or surveys—should 

also be included. No matter your venue or method, 

be sure to consider how individuals with disabilities 

or those with technological limitations will be able to 

participate and attend.

Create a Project-Specific Task Force

A task force may be desirable and useful for large, 

complicated, or controversial projects. Typically, a task 

force will be more involved in the early stages of planning and design. When forming a task force, many of the 

same principles used for forming advisory boards will 

apply. It should represent the community, and roles and 

responsibilities should be clear. The task force should 

include both local residents and members from the larger 

community to provide a balanced representation of the 

community as a whole.

Closing Thoughts 

Along with safety data analysis, the quality of your public 

input and participation processes could determine the 

success of your safety plan. By limiting opportunities for 

community members to engage and provide input to your 

plan, you may be limiting the success of its recommendations. Community members should have ample opportunity to provide their input, and you should seek out voices 

from those organizations and individuals who will be especially impacted by future transportation projects.
5

31

Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

Once local and State agency staff identify safety 

problems and document community input, the 

agency should take steps to match demonstrated 

needs with the appropriate solutions. This chapter 

outlines steps that can be taken to further diagnose 

and understand safety problems, as well as strategies 

for matching these problems with a range of 

interventions and countermeasures.

Diagnosing Safety Problems 

The outcomes of a safety data analysis will reveal a range 

of locations in need of improvements. These problems may be high-crash or high-risk sites and corridors, 

areas, or jurisdiction wide problems spread across the 

network. Before jumping directly to selecting solutions, 

agencies should perform additional diagnosis to understand the problem. 

Field Reviews and Road Safety Audits

Road Safety Audits (RSA) are an effective way to diagnose 

safety issues in a corridor or at an intersection. RSAs 

involve an independent, multidisciplinary team of 

professionals to review a particular location and identify 

environmental, behavioral, and other factors that might 

be influencing crashes and conflicts. While general RSAs 

can examine safety problems among all road users, it is 

important for teams to use checklists and prompts that 

specifically draw attention to pedestrian and bicycle 

safety issues. The RSA differs from the NHTSA Pedestrian 

Safety Program Technical Assessment (https://www.nhtsa.gov/

pedestrian-safety/pedestrian-program-assessment), which reviews 

existing programs at a statewide level and provides 

detailed recommendations for improvement. The RSA 

itself will focus on a much smaller scale – at a specific

intersection or along a corridor. A wide range of audit 

tools (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_audits.cfm) are 

available focusing on different user groups and area types, 

but Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/) and 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (http://www.

pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/PlanDesign_Tools_Audits_PedRSA.pdf) developed 

by FHWA are recommended as a starting point. 

Before countermeasures or other solutions are recommended, problem 

sites like individual intersections, segments and corridors should be further 

diagnosed to understand the problem. Credit: Dan Gelinne, PBIC Image 

Library.

Road Safety Audits bring together multidisciplinary teams to diagnose safety 

problems at a particular site. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC Image Library.

Audit review team participants should include a variety of 

transportation professionals such as a traffic engineer, a 

pedestrian or bicycle planner, a law enforcement professional, or a transit agency representative. This team is 

provided with crash history and other data for the crash 
32

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

location or study area such as traffic counts, proposed 

plans, and other input. In order to have the best chance of 

observing safety problems, the team should visit the site 

at different times of the day and under different conditions so they can get a complete picture of overall safety 

and potential crash problems. For instance, there may be a 

safety issue at night time due to lack of lighting that would 

not be present during the day. The multidisciplinary team 

members visit the location or corridor together with each 

member making their own observations of vehicle, traffic, 

and environmental conditions. The observations and 

suggested solutions are summarized in a report once the 

team has a chance to compare notes. The documented 

findings can be turned into a presentation to your local 

decision makers, your pedestrian and bicycle advisory 

board, or community members in the neighborhoods 

surrounding the road or intersection.

Assessment of Crash Types

While an agency’s safety data analysis may have already 

defined and included crash types, many agencies do not 

routinely assign specific crash types to pedestrian and 

bicyclist crashes. For this reason, it is recommended that 

crashes occurring at high-crash or high-risk locations 

be further examined to determine the circumstances 

leading up to the crash. 

Crash types are routinely recorded for crashes involving 

motor vehicles. Agencies typically understand rear-end 

crashes, angle crashes, and roadway departure crashes, 

for example. Using the crash types as shown in Pedsafe 

and Bikesafe will help an agency understand what factors 

may have contributed to a motor vehicle crash involving a 

pedestrian or bicyclist.

Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and Prompt 

Lists

A detailed road safety audit can help an agency 

better understand safety concerns along a corridor, 

at an intersection, or within a certain area. FHWA 

offers guidelines and prompt lists to help support 

these audits and focus attention on the needs 

of bicyclists and pedestrians. These resources 

provide guidance for selecting audit team 

members, defining the scope of the audit, and

documenting findings. 

Bicycle Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and Prompt Lists 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_

bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/)

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and Prompt Lists 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.

org/pdf/PlanDesign_Tools_

Audits_PedRSA.pdf)

FHWA Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Safety Resources

The U.S. DOT is invested in developing livable 

communities that support safe transporta-tion 

choices for all modes of travel. FHWA has 

worked with agencies to support and address 

the safety of their vulnerable road-users 

through resources such as guidance 

documents, crash statistics, research, and 

webinars. Links to this information and more 

are provided on the FHWA Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Safety webpage: 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/)
Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

33

Types of Solutions 

Before matching solutions to identified problems, agencies 

should understand the range of initiatives and project 

types available to improve safety. Though pedestrian and 

bicycle plans sometimes result only in recommendations 

for infrastructure improvements, it is important that 

your plan include a range of solutions. Collaborative and 

multidisciplinary approaches that take advantage of policy 

improvements, design changes, and behavioral campaigns 

will help leverage a wide range of resources in your 

response to pedestrian and bicyclist safety problems.

Policies

Your agency can address problems across the jurisdiction 

or at a system level through policy changes. Rather than 

focusing on a specific intersection or corridor, a policy 

will influence safety throughout the entire transportation 

system. Policy recommendations can provide excellent 

opportunities for addressing road safety and establishing a 

foundation for more targeted interventions and programs. 

■ Vision Zero Policies: Vision Zero represents a dramatic

shift from a traditional to a safe system approach to 

road safety. At the State level, these are often referred 

to as Toward Zero Deaths policies. At the core of a 

Vision Zero program is a policy statement that indicates

a high-level and broadly supported commitment

to eliminating all road fatalities. A Vision Zero policy 

built on a firm commitment to a multidisciplinary and

collaborative road safety initiative can lay the foundation

for an agency’s programs. The Vision Zero Network

(http://visionzeronetwork.org/) provides a range of tools to help

communities understand and move toward Vision 

Under ideal circumstances, transportation decisions 

can be made that improve conditions for all road users 

simultaneously. In some cases, however, decisions are 

made that place the needs of one road user above 

the needs of another. The Complete Streets Design 

Guidelines developed by the Chicago Department of 

Transportation (CDOT) acknowledges that sometimes 

tradeoffs must be made between different groups of 

road users. To help guide its decisions, CDOT developed 

a modal hierarchy that determines which road users are 

given priority in transportation decisions. The hierarchy 

places pedestrian needs among all other road users, 

followed by transit users, bicyclists, and finally motorists. 

This hierarchy is combined with the guide’s established 

form and function categories for buildings and roadways to determine the most appropriate cross-section 

for the resulting project.

Complete Streets Chicago Design Guidelines

(https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdot/Complete%

20Streets/CompleteStreetsGuidelines.pdf) 

Establishing a Modal Hierarchy in Chicago

Figure 4. Chicago Department of Transportation modal hierarchy. Source: Complete Streets Chicago Design Guidelines
34

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Zero programs. The Road to Zero Coalition (http://www.nsc.org/

learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx) represents the 

National Safety Council, the USDOT, and other partners 

to focus attention on this topic at a national level. 

■ Complete Streets Policies: A national movement

has resulted in the widespread adoption of Complete

Streets Policies requiring transportation decisions to be 

made with all road users in mind. These polices indicate 

a shift in an agency’s process from auto-oriented 

transportation systems to acknowledging and

incorporating the needs of all road users into every road 

project. The National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth 

America (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-completestreets-coalition/) provide tools that can help agencies 

develop and implement effective policies.

■ Land Use, Parking, and Site Design Policies: A range

of policy tools and zoning strategies can set the stage for

future development that is supportive of pedestrian and

bicyclist safety. Parking policies, for example, can dictate

the placement of parking lots behind developments to 

improve access between destinations and the roadway. 

Ordinances that support and incentivize mixed-use 

development can help create opportunities for housing, 

work, and other destinations within shorter distances to 

encourage more opportunities for walking and bicycling. 

Connectivity policies that reduce block lengths can 

provide pedestrians and bicyclists with more direct 

connections and crossing opportunities between 

destinations.

■ Maintaining Connectivity through Work Zones:

Construction sites and work zones often spill out of the

project site and into the roadway, sidewalk, and bicycle

facility. While motor vehicle traffic is often served with

alternate routes and detours, routes for bicycling and

walking are often not maintained. These connections are 

especially critical for individuals with disabilities. Policies 

for work zones can require that steps are taken to 

prioritize the safe movement of pedestrians, bicyclists,

and individuals with disabilities around or through work

sites without forcing them into the roadway where crash

risk may increase.

■ Minimum Passing Distance Laws: State and local

agencies can adopt laws requiring that motor vehicles

passing bicyclists maintain a minimum passing distance,

typically between three and five feet. These laws address 

1 New York City Department of Transportation. (2010). NYC DOT Pilot Program Finds Economic Savings, Efficiencies For Truck Deliveries Made 

During Off-hours. July 1, 2010. Access June 2, 2017. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot//html/pr2010/pr10_028.shtml.

safety problems stemming from motorists passing 

bicyclists too closely, which can contribute to overtaking 

crashes. Such laws provide a basis for law enforcement 

agencies to conduct enforcement operations that target 

this high-risk behavior.

■ Freight and Delivery Policies: Large truck traffic

can pose a safety risk to pedestrians and bicyclists,

as these vehicles complete deliveries in dense urban

environments where they may block bicycle lanes or

sidewalks. Local policies can shift delivery times and

locations to minimize risk to nonmotorized road users.

The implementation of this policy in New York City saw a

range of other benefits, from safety to economic.1

■ Speed Limits: While speed management requires

a more comprehensive strategy, one critical step

is setting an appropriate speed limit for any given road. 

Using tools like USLIMITS2, agencies can review existing 

limits to determine whether they are set appropriately. 

Often a change will require a revision of the State or 

local policy that sets the speed limit. By adjusting these 

policies to allow for lower speeds, law enforcement and 

transportation agencies can more appropriately deploy 

programs and countermeasures that reinforce safe 

speeds.

■ Use of Automated Enforcement Technologies:

Studies have demonstrated that automated

enforcement technologies such as red-light cameras and 

automated speed enforcement improve safety for 

To meet the needs of all road users and ensure connections during 

construction, agencies can set polies that establish safe and continuous 

routes around work zones. Credit: Dan Gelinne, PBIC Image Library. 
Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

35

all road users,2 but State and local policies can limit use 

of these technologies. Working with State legislators and 

local governments to adjust these policies and allow for 

the use of these technologies is one strategy that can 

help support safe transportation systems by enforcing 

appropriate speeds. Though Federal funds cannot be 

used to support these systems, agencies around the 

country have found ways to support their use.

Agencies are encouraged to review their policies as part 

of their safety action plan. What policies are available that 

may help set the stage for more effective programs and 

interventions? What existing policies may be holding 

an agency back from making changes that could 

improve safety? A discussion of current and proposed 

policies should be included in a safety action plans list 

of recommendations.

Roadway Design and Safety Countermeasures

As described in the earlier sections of this guide, many 

safety problems can be traced back to decades of roadway 

design and engineering that prioritized the efficient 

movement of motor vehicles. While opportunities exist 

2 Poole, B. (2012). An Overview of Automated Enforcement Systems 

and Their Potential for Improving Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/

downloads/WhitePaper_AutomatedSafetyEnforcement_PBIC.pdf

to change policies and develop programs to address road 

user behavior, agencies should prioritize roadway design 

changes and countermeasures that reflect 

their safety goals. 

Countermeasures and designs can often be viewed as 

responses to demonstrated safety problems. High-crash 

intersections are improved with improved signal phasing, 

crossing refuges, and pavement markings to facilitate the 

safe movement of bicyclists. However, the safety action 

plan presents an opportunity for agencies to adopt 

specific designs into routine use at all locations. Agencies 

are encouraged to use this opportunity to update standard design manuals and design guidelines so they reflect 

the latest proven safety countermeasures and design 

strategies. By developing and adopting a design manual 

that features these strategies, future transportation 

projects will result in streets and intersections that reflect 

the agency’s safety goals.

Safety designs and countermeasures that address pedestrian and bicycle safety problems are presented in full 

detail in the Pedestrian Safety Countermeasure Selection 

System (PEDSAFE) and Bicycle Safety Countermeasure 

Speed Limit Reduction to 

Improve Safety in Seattle

To respond to system wide road safety concerns 

and support the goals of its Vision Zero plan, the 

Seattle City Council and Mayor approved a reduction in the citywide speed limit in the fall of 2016. 

The change resulted in a permanent reduction 

of 5 miles per hour on all arterials (from 35 to 30 

miles per hour) and non-arterials (from 25 to 20 

miles per hour). This change responded directly 

to a growing concern across the City, and created 

a policy environment that helped support other 

speed management strategies recommended in 

the City’s plans. For more information, visit 

http://www.seattle.gov/visionzero/speed-limits. 

Policy Resources

Policy measures to improve safety are wide ranging, and 

communities are encouraged to complete a comprehensive 

review of existing policies to identify areas where changes 

are needed. The resources below provide some directions 

for developing and changing policies.

Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Networks (FHWA) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

tools_solve/docs/fhwasa17006-Final.pdf) 

USLIMITS2: A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed 

Limit Recommendations (FHWA) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/) 

Vision Zero Network (http://visionzeronetwork.org/) 

National Complete Streets Coalition (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/

program/national-complete-streets-coalition/) 

Road to Zero Coalition 

(http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx)
36

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

Selection System (BIKESAFE). These tools provide ’expert 

systems’ that guide an agency through the process of 

selecting a countermeasure or design that will address a 

demonstrated safety problem. Details of each available 

countermeasure, including supporting research, estimated 

cost, and considerations for implementation, are included 

for more than 100 countermeasures. This guide will not 

present the full details for each countermeasure, but will lay 

out a process that an agency can use to facilitate the appropriate selection of countermeasures within the context of 

their safety plans. It is important for agencies to understand 

which treatments are compliant under the Manual of 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), which their State 

Department of Transportation may further supplement.

The challenge to agencies during the development of the 

pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan is to correctly 

match solutions with observed safety problems. Your 

agency may have unique problems that deserve careful 

consideration before selecting and implementing safety 

improvements. Countermeasures and roadway design strategies are organized into the following location types within 

■ Along the Road: Facilities that provide comfortable

and safe travel along the roadway form the core of the

pedestrian and bicycle network. For pedestrians these

include primarily sidewalks, which should be provided

on both sides of the road. In more rural settings, it may

Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Countermeasure 

Selection Tools

Countermeasure selection is a complex process 

that involves matching the safety problem at a 

particular site with a specific solutions or package 

of treatments. To help agencies approach this 

process, FHWA produced two countermeasure 

selection systems: the Pedestrian Safety Guide 

and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) 

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/) and 

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) (http://www.pedbikesafe.

org/BIKESAFE). These are robust, interactive tools 

that can help your agency navigate dozens of 

designs and countermeasures to identify those 

most appropriate for a given site. Users can navigate the full list of countermeasures, read about 

supporting research on each treatment, and use 

the ’expert system‘ to enter a site’s parameters 

and create a curated list of solutions.

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure 

Selection System (PEDSAFE)

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/) 

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure 

Selection System (BIKESAFE)

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/BIKESAFE) 

Buffered bike lanes provide additional separation from motor vehicle traffic 

and can enhance comfort and safety for bicyclists as a result. Credit: Steven 

Faust, PBIC Image Library.

PEDSAFE and BIKESAFE, and you are encouraged to make 

use of the countermeasure selection tools and matrices 

within each of these resources to help you select appropriate countermeasures.
Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

37

Matching Crash Profiles with Design Improvements 

in San Francisco

Crash Profile Relevant Tools and Solutions

Nighttime Visibility

Advance Stop or Yield Lines / Red Visibility Curbs

Flashing Beacons (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons)

Roadway Safety Lighting

Left Turn at Signalized Intersection

Advance Stop or Yield Lines / Red Visibility Curbs

Leading Pedestrian Intervals

Pedestrian Refuge Islands

Protected Left Turns

Turn Prohibitions

Right Turn at Signalized Intersection

Advance Stop or Yield Lines / Red Visibility Curbs

Corner Bulbs and Chokers

Leading Pedestrian Intervals

Turn Prohibitions

Education and Enforcement Campaigns

Complex Intersections

Advance Stop or Yield Lines / Red Visibility Curbs

Corner Bulbs and Chokers

Pedestrian Countdown Signals

Pedestrian Refuge Islands

Protected Left Turns

Road Diets

Roadway Safety Lighting

Traffic Circles, Roundabouts & Chicanes

Turn Prohibitions

Education and Enforcement Campaigns

Midblock Collisions

Advance Stop or Yield Lines / Red Visibility Curbs

Automated Speed Enforcement

Flashing Beacons (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons)

Pedestrian Refuge Islands

Radar Speed Display Sign / Portable Speed Trailer

Road Diets

Speed Humps

Speed Tables and Raised Crosswalks

The Walk First initiative in San Francisco included a datadriven effort to understand and respond to pedestrian 

safety problems in the City. Following a comprehensive data analysis identifying priority corridors and 

intersections across the City, the Planning Department 

used contributing crash factors to develop a series of 

12 crash profiles representing the bulk of the crashes 

involving pedestrians. The City linked each crash profile

to different high injury corridors and matched them to a 

set of design improvements responding directly to the 

observed problem. A sampling of five crash profiles and

some identified solutions include:

Table 2. Walk First crash profiles and recommended solutions. Source: San Francisco Crash Profile tool: http://walkfirst.sfplanning.org/index.php/home/streets.

More detail can be found at the project website: http://walkfirst.sfplanning.org/index.php/home/streets/
38

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

be sufficient to provide a wide paved shoulder in areas 

where there are gaps in the network and funding 

limitations. In these cases, your agency should ensure 

the facility is accessible for individuals with disabilities. 

Facilities for bicyclists along the road exist on a spectrum 

defined by a level of separation from motor vehicle 

traffic. Low volume and low speed streets can be 

appropriate for shared lane facilities, but as speeds and 

volumes increase, bicyclists require options that provide 

greater separation. Bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, 

or physically separated bicycle lanes provide increasing 

levels of comfort and safety for all types of bicyclists. 

Strategies to narrow lanes, eliminate lanes, or provide 

medians can improve safety and comfort for all road 

users by managing traffic speeds and breaking up 

long crossings. 

■ Crossing Locations: The unique needs of pedestrians

and bicyclists are most apparent at intersection

locations, where safety improvements for one road user

cannot always solve problems for the other. Design

principles at crossing locations should help reduce

crossing distances and exposure to motor vehicles while

also minimizing conflicts between modes that can often

result from turning movements. Reducing curb radii,

improving sight distance, and enhancing signs, signals,

and markings can address these concerns and make

complex intersections more manageable for all road

users. Intersections at interchanges, and locations that

may not be considered intersections, such as driveways 

and alleys, also present challenges to nonmotorized 

road users and should be addressed with similar safety 

design principles in mind.

■ Traffic Calming: Traffic calming solutions help reduce

traffic speeds and volumes to enhance the safety of

pedestrians and bicyclists. Deploying countermeasures

like mini traffic circles, speed humps or tables, and

landscaping can improve safety and comfort for 

pedestrians while also creating low stress routes for 

bicyclists. Traffic calming strategies are most often 

used to achieve lower volume, lower speed streets, 

but the same principles can be applied in other parts 

of the network to achieve speed management and 

other safety goals.

Pedestrian crossings at intersections can be enhanced by adding islands to 

help break the crossing into shorter distances while providing additional 

protection and improving visibility for all road users. Credit: Laura Sandt, PBIC 

Image Library.

Neighborhood traffic circles can be used in residential areas to reduce 

the need for signals or all-way stops while also controlling speeds. Credit: 

Carl Sundstrom, PBIC Image Library.

Shared use paths and separated facilities provide some of the most 

comfortable options for bicyclists and pedestrians. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC 

Image Library.
Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

39

■ Shared Use Facilities: Shared use paths and trails

provide pedestrians and bicyclists with the maximum 

amount of separation from motor vehicle traffic and can

serve to connect destinations where on-road facilities do 

not exist. Shared use paths and trails should be designed 

with both pedestrians and bicyclists in mind, providing 

sufficient width to manage high volumes of traffic

that may include commuters, recreational users, and 

others. Locations where trails cross roadways should be 

prioritized for safety improvements.

■ Lighting: Improved street lighting is not always included

in the toolbox of safety countermeasures, but it can be an

effective way of improving visibility and conspicuity.

Pedestrian-scale lighting provides much-needed

illumination that overhead corridor lighting often does

not provide. Lighting can be systemically applied

throughout the transportation system, and opportunities

for enhanced lighting can be identified by conducting

nighttime road safety audits. Improving lighting along

roads, at intersections, and along trails can provide both

safety and personal security benefits. Ensure that lighting

does not create excessive light pollution.

These very general categories of designs and countermeasures provide a brief look at the different ways an 

agency can begin thinking about the different locations 

where safety projects can be completed. The list of countermeasure and design resources below can serve as a 

starting point for agencies who wish to explore all available options and begin building their own toolbox of 

design improvements.

Programs to Address Road User Behaviors

Developing programs to educate law enforcement officers

and the public, create awareness of safety problems, and 

enforce safety laws can provide essential support for 

policy and design changes. Law enforcement is a critical 

component of efforts to ensure safe and secure travel 

options. Law enforcement agencies have a role to play 

in setting policies, raising awareness about safety issues, 

influencing behaviors and social norms, and reinforcing 

and supporting educational and engineering programs 

and strategies, but often, they lack the knowledge of issues 

associated with pedestrian and bicycle safety. States and 

localities have access to resources or templates to create 

State or locality specific training for law enforcement 

officers by contacting their State Highway Safety Office or 

NHTSA Regional Office.

Addressing Crashes 

Involving Left-Turn 

Vehicles in New York City

To better understand pedestrian and bicycle safety 

at intersections across New York City, the New 

York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) 

performed a study to examine factors in crashes 

that involved left-turn vehicles. These locations 

accounted for some of the most severe crashes 

around the City, and the study revealed common 

factors associated with these crashes. 

After quantifying the problem, the City identified

several countermeasures to help address safety 

risks at several locations citywide. These treatments 

included leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), left 

turn restrictions, and low-cost intersection islands 

to guide lower-speed turns. After implementing 

the projects, the City was able to document a 24.4 

percent decrease in median turning speeds. 

More information can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/

html/dot/html/pedestrians/left-turn-traffic-calming.shtml.

Low-cost treatments to tighten corners, as shown above, allowed 

NYCDOT to treat many of the locations where left turning conflicts 

were identified. Credit: NYC Vision Zero Year Three Report. 

https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/visionzero/downloads/pdf/vision-zero-year-3-report.pdf
40

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

When developing and deploying 

education and enforcement strategies, 

agencies should consider and acknowledge the limitations of programs that 

simply seek to raise awareness of safety 

problems. Such campaigns can provide 

messages that appear to conflict with 

the reality of the roadway environment, 

and this can limit their effectiveness. For 

example, a safety campaign might 

feature a message instructing pedestrians to only cross the street at locations 

with crosswalks. In areas where great 

distance exists between crosswalks, 

it is reasonable to expect that people 

will instead cross where they can find

a gap in traffic, rather than traveling a 

long distance to the nearest crossing 

location. Agencies should be conscious 

of the fact that simply telling people 

what they should do may not result in 

changes to road user behavior. Instead, it 

may be more effective to communicate 

this message while also creating a new 

crosswalk that is appropriately designed 

that allows people to cross safely. The 

environment reinforces the message, 

which may increase its effectiveness.

With that in mind, there are many types 

of education and enforcement strategies that can have a positive impact on 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety. These 

programs can further support efforts to 

change policies and redesign streets and 

intersections to address safety problems.

■ General Safety Campaigns and

Messages: These safety campaigns

can take advantage of public service 

announcements, billboards,

pamphlets, and other forms of media

to communicate specific messages to 

different road users. Your community

can take advantage of social media

platforms and other methods to

deliver safety messages to a variety of

audiences. These campaigns may be 

Roadway Design and 

Countermeasure Resources

The following tools and resources can serve as a starting point for 

agencies interested in rounding out their toolbox of design and 

engineering strategies. 

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Systems (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/)

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/)

Design Resource Index (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center)

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_designresourceindex.cfm) 

Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO)

(https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?id=119)

Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO) 

(https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_details.aspx?ID=1943)

Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO)

(https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/)

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (FHWA) 

(http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/) 

Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Networks (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/network_report/network_report.pdf) 

Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA) 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/) 

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts 

(FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/

multimodal_networks/) 

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (FHWA) 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/) 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA) 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_

bikelane_pdg/page00.cfm) 

Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety (FHWA) 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/)
Chapter 5. Selecting Safety Improvements

41

limited in effectiveness on their own, but can provide 

essential messages in advance of design improvements 

or targeted enforcement campaigns. Carefully select 

messages based on your safety analysis and target them 

to the users you want to reach.

■ Automated Enforcement: The purpose of using these 

systems is to monitor and cite drivers for unsafe

behaviors and they are typically the responsibility of law 

enforcement agencies. Automated enforcement systems 

can be used to enforce red light running violations as 

well as speeding violations, issuing tickets or warnings to 

drivers using camera technology. These can be effective 

methods for curbing unsafe behaviors, but should be 

supported by policies that allow their use. As previously 

mentioned, Federal funds do not support automated 

enforcement systems, so agencies must determine the 

best way to support their use.

■ Speed Feedback Signs: Dynamic speed feedback signs 

provide display speeds to drivers in comparison to the 

established speed limit on a corridor. The message is 

intended to remind drivers of the speed limit, but these 

systems do not typically include any enforcement

mechanism. When used in targeted locations like school 

zones, and moved around frequently to different 

locations, these systems can be effective in reducing 

driver speeds.

■ Enforcement Operations: When coupled with a high

visibility media campaign to advertise their goals,

targeted enforcement operations can be a very effective

way of improving road user behaviors. Some of the most

common examples of these operations include those to 

address seat belt use (“Click it or Ticket”) and address

impaired driving (“Drive Sober or Get Pulled Over”).

These campaigns can support pedestrian and bicycle

safety by targeting specific motorist behaviors. For

example, officers can perform operations at crosswalks

to warn or cite drivers that fail to yield to pedestrians.

Officers can equip bicycles with sensors that help 

detect and enforce violations of minimum passing

distance laws. By working with courts to ensure these

programs are set up appropriately, and working with

media to ensure there is widespread knowledge of

the law, targeted enforcement provides agencies with

valuable safety tool.

■ Education and Skills Training for Children: Develop

school-based programs to communicate rules of the

road to young pedestrians and bicyclists. Many schools 

offer these programs as part of their Safe Routes 

to School program, physical education and health 

classes, and incorporate educational messages with 

bicycling and walking skills training to help develop 

safe behaviors at a young age. Key safety messages 

for expectations of safe behaviors among pedestrians, 

bicyclists, and especially drivers (often the parents 

themselves) should be reinforced through various 

channels to care-givers and the community. 

■ Adult Crossing Guards and Safety Teams: Typically

used at school locations or in areas with high volumes

of pedestrian activity, crossing guards can reinforce

Resources for Addressing Road 

User Behaviors

The following resources can help agencies identify and 

select awareness campaigns, educational programs, and law 

enforcement strategies that can address safety problems 

stemming from unsafe road user behaviors.

Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway Safety 

Professionals (NHTSA) (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/

files/812258-peds_bike_primer.pdf) 

Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide (NHTSA) 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812059-pedestriansafetyenfo

rceoperahowtoguide.pdf) 

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide 

for State Highway Safety Offices (NHTSA) (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/

nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812202-countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf) 

Crossing guards are valuable resources for facilitating crossings and serving 

as safety ambassadors to the local community. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC 

Image Library.
42

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

safety messages and built environment changes. Some 

cities will form teams of safety “ambassadors” to attend 

community events and provide presentations to provide 

another level of targeted safety messaging. When 

performing field audits to diagnose safety problems, be 

sure to talk with your crossing guards about behaviors 

and problems they observe.

Closing Thoughts 

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety problems are complex in 

nature and require a collaborative response from a broad 

range of partners. Using standalone efforts to redesign 

the roadway, develop new policies, and roll out 

behavioral campaigns are not sufficient responses to the 

problem. Instead, agencies should work with all partners 

to develop coordinated safety programs that can more 

effectively leverage all of these interventions through a 

coherent and multidisciplinary approach. 

Conducting Targeted Enforcement Operations

Based on the Click it or Ticket (CIOT) model, but strategically focused on addressing the safety of pedestrians 

(and bicyclists at times), law enforcement officers can 

perform pedestrian crosswalk enforcement using 

officers as pedestrian decoys or “watch and respond” 

approach where uniformed officers watch public areas 

for motorist responses to crossing pedestrians. In both 

cases, officers radio ahead to marked or unmarked 

squad cars to pull over offenders. As with the CIOT 

model, these efforts often use media to raise public 

awareness, enforcement to educate offenders coupled 

with a warning period, and is followed by education and 

citations. Enforcement efforts to enhance pedestrian 

and bicycle safety, like other types of enforcement operations, follow the data to target locations where crashes 

and fatalities are happening. These campaigns can also 

be conducted in high-risk areas where large numbers of 

pedestrians and motorists interact. While efforts more 

frequently focus on drivers, pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ 

behavior can be incorporated into any campaign. 

Officers may use their discretion and cite pedestrians or 

bicyclists engaging in high-risk behaviors. Additionally, 

while not specifically directed to pedestrian and bicycle 

safety, enforcement operations directed at impaired or 

distracted driving behooves the safety of all road users. 

Officers can equip bicycles with sensors that help detect 

and enforce violations of minimum passing distance 

laws. Enforcement efforts must coincide with education 

and buy-in from the courts. This includes assurance of 

standardized protocol for set-up, establishing periods 

of education followed by enforcement, and developing 

methods to evaluate the program. Media collaboration 

should ensure there is widespread knowledge of the law 

and outreach that officers will be looking to behaviors 

that impact the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists.

For more information on pedestrian safety operations, 

see NHTSA’s Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To 

Guide (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812059-pedestria

nsafetyenforceoperahowtoguide.pdf).

Targeted enforcement operations can reinforce yielding and other traffic 

laws. Credit: Dan Burden, PBIC Image Library.
6

43

Program Implementation 

Chapter 6. and Evaluation

A safety action plan shouldn’t conclude with a simple 

list of recommendations. A strategy to prioritize and 

implement those recommendations is required for 

a plan to become reality. Often this means making 

tough decisions about how to allocate resources, and 

ultimately this becomes one of the most challenging 

parts of your pedestrian and bicycle safety program. 

Once projects and programs are implemented, 

agencies should take steps to evaluate the impact of 

their efforts. This chapter will help you understand 

what steps are needed to implement and evaluate 

your safety action plan.

Funding is critical to implementation. It can be the 

enabler for making improvements that reduce crashes, 

or it can be the barrier that prevents needed improvements from being made. With most State and local 

governments facing severe budget constraints, allocating 

funds to address pedestrian and bicycle safety issues can 

be a challenge. Nevertheless, some States and urban 

areas are achieving very low crash numbers despite 

limited funding. The challenge is to figure out how these 

outcomes are being achieved and then apply them to 

States and communities with high numbers of pedestrian 

and bicyclist crashes.

Achieving better outcomes always begins with a commitment to safety for all road users. It should be the number 

one priority of State and local transportation agencies. A 

firm commitment allows transportation agencies to allocate funds to address all crash types, including pedestrian 

and bicycle crashes. Projects that only focus on reducing 

congestion or motor vehicle crashes may jeopardize the 

safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Funding Strategies

The following funding strategies can be applied to 

finance pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements:

■ Routine accommodation in new projects.

■ Partnerships.

■ Dedicated funds and set asides.

■ Annual maintenance budget.

Routine Accommodation in New Projects

Routinely including pedestrian and bicycle facilities with 

other roadway improvement projects is a cost-effective 

strategy for improving safety. Incorporating pedestrianand bicycle-friendly design strategies as part of normal 

public and private development and the adoption 

of good traffic management practices are known as 

“routine accommodation.” Most pedestrian and bicycle 

infrastructure is built in conjunction with other projects: 

pedestrian crossings are built in conjunction with the 

construction of intersections; space is reallocated for 

bicycle lanes when roads are resurfaced; and most 

sidewalks in residential neighborhoods are built as part of 

private, residential housing construction. 

Routine accommodation allows for significant improvements over time, even if there is no special funding 

available for pedestrian safety improvements. Chapter 

5 provides a list of standardized traffic management

and design practices that will reduce crashes over time. 

Routine accommodation for new projects does not 

diminish the importance of immediately addressing 

high-crash locations, corridors, and other targeted 

areas immediately.

Partnerships

Both public works and many private development 

projects provide partnership opportunities for 

making safety improvements and providing routine 

accommodation. For example, opportunities to construct 

sidewalks can be provided with resurfacing projects; 
44

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

opportunities for placing utilities underground (and thus 

eliminating obstructions on sidewalks) can be found 

with other projects.

Some projects may generate neighborhood concern or 

opposition. Frequently, public and private projects include 

some pedestrian or bicycle facilities, supported by the 

neighborhood, to build good will. In other cases, there 

may be a common benefit. Private developers and other 

agencies are often willing to make needed safety improvements, as a safer, more accessible development is more 

attractive to potential tenants or customers.

Large projects present an opportunity for significant

pedestrian and bicycle improvements. For example, a new 

development may generate enough traffic to warrant 

a signal near a school or other pedestrian destination. 

Utility work next to a roadway or in an abandoned railroad line can provide an opportunity for constructing a 

sidewalk or pathway.

Combined improvements involve grouping smaller projects with an existing funded project. Funding improvements as part of larger projects creates economies of scale. 

For example, if there is a public works project to construct 

a concrete roadway, it may be cheaper to add construction 

of sidewalks on nearby streets instead of building them as 

a separate project. It may also be advantageous to provide 

funding for a spot improvement such as a midblock 

crossing where pedestrians are expected to cross. Not only 

are costs reduced when two types of work are combined 

into one project, but other advantages include reduced 

impact to traffic, residents, and businesses.

Dedicated Funds and Set Asides

Some States, MPOs, and local governments have set 

aside dedicated funds for pedestrian and/or bicycle 

improvements. Set asides are either a percentage of 

a larger fund; for example, a percentage of funds for 

pedestrian and/or bicycle projects. Typical examples 

include developer funds (developers deposit funds into 

a centralized fund or escrow account for future use), 

resource funds (taxes on extracted natural resources such 

as gravel or oil), and real estate excise funds.

While dedicated funds and set asides are possible funding 

sources, they should not be a substitute for routine 

accommodation. For example, funding for shoulder and 

sidewalk improvements should be routine practice and 

not paid for through set aside funds. In general, changing 

policy to include pedestrian and bicycle improvements in all programs and projects will produce more 

funding than set asides.

Annual Maintenance Budget

Agencies can use existing annual maintenance budgets to 

make important improvements to bicycling and walking 

infrastructure. For example, limited budgets for painting 

marked crosswalks can be focused around schools 

and high-crash locations. Crosswalks can be widened 

or changed to high-visibility markings when they are 

scheduled to be repainted. Crosswalk signs scheduled for 

replacement can be upgraded to the brighter fluorescent 

yellow-green signs adopted by the MUTCD as an option 

for pedestrian and bicycle warning signs. During regular 

Incorporating Nonmotorized 

Networks into Resurfacing 

Projects

Your community likely faces the same funding challenges as States and cities across the country. With 

limited funds available for developing and implementing pedestrian and bicycle facilities, agencies 

should take advantage of ongoing maintenance 

budgets to implement low cost projects. The regular 

resurfacing of streets in your community may provide 

an opportunity to accomplish some of your goals. By 

planning ahead, you may be able to incorporate bike 

lane or road diet projects simply by updating pavement 

marking plans. The FHWA guide Incorporating On-Road 

Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (https://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/)

lays out a framework for making this happen and 

includes case studies from agencies that have been 

successful in taking advantage of these opportunities 

for implementation. 

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/resurfacing/) 
Chapter 6. Program Implementation and Evaluation

45

road resurfacing, there are opportunities to adjust 

pavement markings to include recommendations laid out 

in the safety action plan. This can involve lane narrowing, 

road diets, and adding bicycle lanes. The FHWA Guide 

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/

resurfacing/) provides more detail about taking advantage of 

regular maintenance activities.

FHWA’s Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced 

Safety (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/) 

offers additional guidance for funding maintenance 

activities that can help address safety problems. The guide 

points to several examples of strategies being used by 

communities that could serve as models:

■ A sidewalk mileage tax in Ann Arbor, Michigan,

generates more than $500,000 per year to perform

needed sidewalk repair and replacement.

■ Utility bills in Corvallis, Oregon, and Cheney,

Washington, generate funds for sidewalk construction

and maintenance through water, sewer, electrical

and gas services.

■ The City of Madison, Wisconsin, conducts regular

sidewalk assessments and works with property owners

to complete needed repairs and upgrades.

More information about funding strategies for maintenance activities can be found in Chapter 7 of 

the guide (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/

fhwasa13037/chap7.cfm). 

Funding Criteria and 

Prioritization 

State and local governments typically use multiple 

funding sources for transportation projects, from Federal 

grants to gas taxes to general tax revenues. These sources 

often have funding criteria that determine what projects 

are eligible. Funding criteria are reviewed and updated 

periodically; they can be rewritten to increase funding 

for pedestrian and bicycle safety projects. There are two 

ways to levy these sources for safety improvements for 

pedestrians and bicyclists: 1) Giving higher scores to 

projects that include pedestrian or bicycle safety elements; 

and 2) Adjusting criteria to prioritize projects that will 

reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes. By updating these 

criteria to prioritize nonmotorized road users, your agency 

may be able to give pedestrian and bicycle projects a 

boost. Finding a way to incorporate other community 

and agency goals into your prioritization system may be 

difficult, but tools like the ActiveTrans Priority Tool (http://www.

pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_apt.cfm) can help combine both 

quantitative and qualitative inputs to help drive decision 

making. Many roadway improvements, such as road diets 

or roundabouts, can improve safety for all users. Funding 

criteria that acknowledges projects with multiple benefits

may help accomplish all of your safety goals instead of 

singling out certain road user groups. 

Major Funding Sources 

Federal funding used by State and local agencies for 

pedestrian and bicyclist improvements has increased 

dramatically in recent decades. State and local agencies only invested a few million dollars of Federal funds 

on bicycle and pedestrian projects. While the energy 

crisis of the early 1970s had spawned new interest and 

Ongoing Maintenance for 

Pedestrian Facilities

When budgeting for safety projects in your pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan, remember 

to account for the ongoing expenses involved in 

maintaining these facilities. Pedestrian facilities, 

in particular, experience wear and tear over time 

that your agency should capture in its budget. 

The FHWA Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities 

for Enhanced Safety (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

tools_solve/fhwasa13037/) will help your agency think 

through all of the maintenance considerations 

you may encounter. The guide lays out considerations for street tree plantings and avoiding root 

damage to sidewalks. It also provides strategies for 

accomplishing snow removal without disrupting 

the pedestrian network. The guide includes case 

studies of maintenance programs from around the 

country to illustrate effective maintenance activities 

and provide inspiration to other communities. 

Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/) 
46

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

some modest government initiatives to make improvements, the government invested very little money at 

any level in pedestrian and bicycle facilities. Likewise, the 

outdoor recreation industry and business community in 

general provided very little funding for facilities, planning, 

programs, or organizational development. Throughout 

the late 1970s and 1980s, State and local parks agencies invested the largest amounts of funds for bicycling 

and walking to build multiuse trails; however, even these 

levels of investment were very small compared to what 

is happening today.

Federal Funds

As with most highway projects, pedestrian and bicycle 

safety projects can be supported by funds made available 

through the Federal-aid Highway Program. Each funding 

source has specific stipulations as to the type of projects 

it can support, so a detailed review of the available funds 

is recommended. The FHWA Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Program maintains a detailed breakdown of Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Funding Opportunities (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/funding/funding_opportunities.cfm) matching each 

to the types of projects it can support. Your agency should 

ActiveTrans 

Priority Tool

Project prioritization can be a complex 

process, and there is no shortage of 

information available about different 

ways to weight and prioritize potential 

improvements. Unfortunately, many 

prioritization schemes are rigid and may 

not easily incorporate other qualitative 

input and community values that are 

captured within a safety action plan. 

The ActiveTrans Priority Tool (APT) 

provides agencies with an option for 

accomplishing data-driven prioritization 

that also acknowledges and captures 

agency desires and community values. 

Divided into two phases (scoping and 

prioritization), the APT allows agencies 

to develop project priorities that 

accomplish complete streets goals 

that are particularly responsive to the 

needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. An 

online version of the tool hosted by 

the PBIC includes further guidance, a 

link to the NCHRP source material, and 

interactive spreadsheets. 

ActiveTrans Priority Tool

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_apt.cfm) Figure 5. The ActiveTrans Priority Tool. The ActiveTrans Priority Tool lays out a twophase approach to project scoping and prioritization. Credit: ActiveTrans Priority Tool.
Chapter 6. Program Implementation and Evaluation

47

proactively review these available sources and work with 

your State department of transportation to identify those 

that can support your project.

Outside of the Federal transportation programs there 

are a wide range of other Federal funds that can be used 

for walking facilities. Community Development Block 

Grants through the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) are a likely source of funds for 

community-based projects such as commercial district 

streetscape improvements, sidewalk improvements, Safe 

Routes to School, or other neighborhood-based walking 

facilities that improve local transportation or help revitalize neighborhoods. 

State and Local Funds

States typically raise revenue for highway and 

transportation infrastructure through a State motor 

vehicle fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Similar to 

the Federal legislation, laws in many States make most 

pedestrian and bicycle programs eligible for funding. In 

some States, use of funds may be limited to improvements 

on State-owned and operated facilities. Other sources 

of funding that Federal agencies distribute to States can 

help support education and enforcement activities that 

address pedestrian and bicycle safety, such as Section 405 

funds distributed by NHTSA (https://www.nhtsa.gov/highwaysafety-grants-program).

Some examples of revenue streams used by local communities to improve conditions for pedestrians include: 

special bond issues, dedications of a portion of local sales 

taxes or a voter-approved sales tax increase, and the use 

of the annual capital improvement budgets of public 

works and/or parks agencies. Your agency can work 

with State and regional partners to learn how your plan’s 

recommendations can tap into funding sources available in your state. 

Health Agencies

Public health partners are often overlooked as potential 

sources of funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects. 

By collaborating with these partners on safety projects, 

agencies may be able to identify funding sources that 

can support projects that achieve shared goals between 

transportation and health organizations, such as 

addressing concerns about equity and promoting active 

transportation. State and local health departments may 

provide more information about what opportunities may 

be available. Work with these health agencies and partners 

to identify funding sources available for supporting 

transportation projects.

Private Funding

It may be possible to collaborate with private 

organizations to support safety projects or take 

advantage of new development to have elements of your 

safety plan implemented.

Private foundations have provided funding for pedestrian 

and bicycle projects and programs. A few national and 

large regional foundations have supported the national 

organizations involved in pedestrian and bicycle policy 

advocacy. However, it is usually the regional and local 

foundations that get involved in funding pedestrian and 

bicycle projects. These same foundations may also fund 

Statewide and local advocacy efforts. 

In some cases, developers are required to provide funding 

for roadway improvement projects that will build sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and paths. In other cases, developers are required to build off-site improvements, largely 

in response to master plans or stipulations on their 

development. While in the latter case, they may not be 

providing funding to the agency to build the project, the 

result may be the same.

Evaluating Safety Programs and 

Projects 

A successful pedestrian and bicycle safety action plan 

must contain a mechanism to evaluate results. This 

ensures that stakeholders of the action plan understand 

whether or not the implemented strategies were effective in reducing crashes and improving safety, and helps 

ensure future funding opportunities if the plan demonstrates successful outcomes. In order to perform a thorough evaluation, the specific objectives of your action 

plan need to be defined prior to implementation. By 

ensuring your objectives are SMART (specific, measurable, 

achievable, reasonable, and time-focused), they are conducive to being evaluated. Given limited resources, identify, 

prioritize, and pursue the most effective countermeasures. 

Where such action plans have not been successful in 
48

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

some communities, it is not because of a lack of funds, but 

because the wrong countermeasures and strategies were 

chosen, including making meaningful changes to agency 

design and management policies. This is often the result of 

poor or no evaluation feedback to inform the action plan. 

Evaluation means that action plans are not static documents—they should change over time as various safety 

countermeasures and strategies are tried and evaluated. 

Consider trial deployments of roadway designs with lowcost treatments, or testing your campaign messages with 

a focus group of end users. The input you receive from 

this process should feed into your decision making so you 

invest resources where they will be most effective.

A key prerequisite to any evaluation process is to quantify the before conditions and track changes in the after 

condition. The data collection efforts discussed previously 

earlier in this guide provide some ideas for measures that 

can be routinely tracked and collected for each project. 

Documenting these outcomes can be an excellent way 

to monitor the success of countermeasures and interventions. It is also important to note that, in some cases, 

pedestrian and bicycle crashes may increase when walking 

and biking activity also increases. In these instances, the 

respective crash rates may have decreased, and a welldocumented evaluation of results is needed to provide the 

most accurate measure of success.

Your agency may struggle with fully integrating project 

evaluation into your ongoing activities. One reason for 

skipping evaluation is simple: there may not be funding 

available to perform robust evaluation of safety projects. 

Even without funding, agencies can effectively track 

their progress by agreeing to collect basic information each time a project is completed. The following 

list includes some simple metrics that can help you 

measure your impact:

■ Installation Date: It may seem simple, but most

agencies don’t keep accurate records about the date

when they installed treatments. Knowing this date can

allow you to look back and perform a simple before and

after evaluation down the road.

■ Vehicle Speeds: Law enforcement partners can collect

speed data along a corridor before construction begins

and again once the changes are made. Vehicle speeds

provide an excellent surrogate measure of safety, and

knowing that your project resulted in lower speeds

can help you communicate success back to your 

decision makers.

■ Before and After Pictures: Images are more qualitative

than other measures listed here, but sometimes the

most effective way to communicate a story is through

imagery. Unfortunately many agencies skip this step

and aren’t able to go back in time to take a picture of

their previous condition. Remembering to capture

images of the site before the project, and then take the

same picture after construction is complete, to give you

powerful visuals to document your successes.

■ Counts and Volumes: Traffic volume data are regularly

collected and should be available from your local

transportation department. Pedestrian and bicyclist

counts, on the other hand, may not be readily available.

Steps can be taken to make sure these important data

points are collected before and after your project is

implemented. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Information

Center (PBIC) has resources for conducting pedestrian

and bicyclist counts at http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/

tools_counts.cfm.

■ Crash Data: Crashes may not be the most reliable way 

to measure the impact of a project at just one location, 

but it is important to monitor your crash data and 

understand if your project is having an impact on 

crashes. 

There are many more metrics available that your agency 

can use to measure project impact, but the list above 

provides a starting point. For more information about 

how to measure and monitor your various performance 

measures, visit the FHWA Guide for Developing Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Performance Measures (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/).

Combining a record of successful projects is very helpful 

in showing progress over time. Understanding where your 

projects didn’t have their desired impact can help inform 

your future activities. Good safety plans will include a 

comprehensive documentation of successful projects or 

institutional changes. It is also important to note that in 

some cases, the number of pedestrian crashes may not go 

down due to the fact that pedestrian activity and access 

has increased. In these instances, the rate of pedestrian 

and bicyclist crashes may have decreased, and a welldocumented evaluation of results is needed to provide the 

most accurate measure of success.
Chapter 6. Program Implementation and Evaluation

49

Closing Thoughts 

Program implementation and evaluation represent the 

outcomes of your safety plan. To make sure these steps 

are taken, your agency needs to be sure to include them 

in the plan’s recommendations. Without setting specific

assignments and next steps for project implementation, 

your plan’s recommendations may never become reality. 

Being able to track your success and report your impact 

back to decision makers may be an effective way to justify 

more future investment in walking and bicycling.

7

51

Chapter 7. Summary and Conclusion

Your pedestrian and/or bicycle safety action plan will 

lay out a vision for how your community will respond to 

safety problems. As outlined in this guide, the development of your safety action plan requires input from a 

broad range of partners and stakeholders in order to 

be effective. The following takeaways from the previous 

chapters can help guide the development and implementation of your plan.

■ A safety plan should acknowledge the unique needs of

pedestrians and bicyclists among road users and lay out

clear, measurable goals for improving their safety.

■ Plans should be data-driven and based on a complete

understanding of the safety problem. Use a range of

data sources and types to look at high-crash and highrisk locations.

■ The plan you develop is a reflection of the community’s

goals and vision, and steps should be taken to ensure

that all members of the community have opportunities

to provide their input.

■ Properly diagnosing a safety problem using audits and 

crash types will help you match the appropriate policy, 

design, and behavioral interventions to respond to the 

problem.

■ Your plan should include specific recommendations for

funding and supporting its recommendations. Always

evaluate the impacts of your safety projects and use the

findings to demonstrate your success and modify your

strategy as needed. 

The success of your plan will be determined by all of these 

factors. Your approach will be unique and tailored to the 

specific needs of your community, and the resulting plan 

will demonstrate your commitment to improving the 

safety of the most vulnerable road users.

Pedestrian and bicycle safety action plans incorporate and protect all users 

of the transportation system. Credit: Laura Sandt, PBIC Image Library.

A

53

List of Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Appendix A: Safety Guides and Resources

The following reports, tools, and guides can serve as 

useful references as you develop and implement your 

pedestrian and bicycle safety action plans.

Planning and Performance 

Measurement Resources

Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance 

Measures (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_

pedestrian/publications/performance_measures_guidebook/page02.cfm)

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Apply Design Flexibility and 

Reducing Conflicts (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_networks/fhwahep16055.pdf)

Bike Network Mapping Idea Book (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/bikemap_book/)

Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Connected 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks (FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/

environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/network_report/) 

A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking and 

Biking (FHWA) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/

ped_walkguide/residents_guide2014_final.pdf) 

Pedestrian Safety Program Technical Assessment (NHTSA) (https://

www.nhtsa.gov/pedestrian-safety/pedestrian-program-assessment)

Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA) (https://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/) 

ActiveTrans Priority Tool (PBIC) (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/

planning/tools_apt.cfm)

Resources for Conducting Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts (PBIC) 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/tools_counts.cfm)

Metropolitan Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook (https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/pedestrian_bicycle/publications/

mpo_handbook/index.cfm) 

Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook (https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/pedestrian_bicycle/publications/

pedestrian_bicycle_handbook/fhwahep14051.pdf?redirect)

Resources for Diagnosing Safety 

Problems

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (FHWA) 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/) and

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pdf/PlanDesign_Tools_Audits_PedRSA.pdf)

Road Safety Audit Tools (PBIC) (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/

planning/tools_audits.cfm)

Countermeasure and Design 

Resources

The Road Diet Informational Guide 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/)

Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities (AASHTO) (https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_

details.aspx?id=119) 

Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Bicycle 

Facilities (AASHTO) (https://bookstore.transportation.org/item_

details.aspx?ID=1943) 

Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO) (https://nacto.org/publication/urbanstreet-design-guide/) 

Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (FHWA) (https://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/) 

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (FHWA) (http://www.

cmfclearinghouse.org/) 

Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced 

Safety (FHWA) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_

solve/fhwasa13037/) 
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Systems 

(FHWA) (http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/) 

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/) 

Design Resource Index (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information 

Center) (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/planning/facilities_

designresourceindex.cfm) 

USLIMITS2: A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate 

Speed Limit Recommendations (FHWA) 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/)

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects 

(FHWA) (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/resurfacing/) 

FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA) 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/

separated_bikelane_pdg/page00.cfm) 

Behavioral Resources

Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS) 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/ddacts/811185_

DDACTS_OpGuidelines.pdf)

Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide (NHTSA) 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812059-pedestriansafetye

nforceoperahowtoguide.pdf)

Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway 

Safety Professionals (NHTSA) (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.

gov/files/812258-peds_bike_primer.pdf) 

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide 

for State Highway Safety Offices (NHTSA) (https://www.nhtsa.gov/

sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812202-countermeasuresthatwork8th.pdf)

National Pedestrian Safety Campaign (FHWA) 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/pedcampaign/) 

Pedestrian Safer Journey (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pedsaferjourney/) 

Bicycle Safer Journey (FHWA) 

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bicyclesaferjourney/)

Policy Resources

Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Networks (FHWA) (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

tools_solve/docs/fhwasa17006-Final.pdf)

Vision Zero Network (Vision Zero Network) 

(http://visionzeronetwork.org/)

Road to Zero Coalition (National Safety Council) (http://www.nsc.

org/learn/NSC-Initiatives/Pages/The-Road-to-Zero.aspx)

National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America

(Smart Growth America) (https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/

national-complete-streets-coalition/)

Helpful Contacts

Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinators Contact Information 

(PBIC) (http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/state.cfm)

State Highway Safety Offices (GHSA) 

(http://www.ghsa.org/about/shsos)

FHWA Division Offices (FHWA) 

(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm)

NHTSA Regional Offices (NHTSA) 

(https://www.nhtsa.gov/about-nhtsa)

54

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan
B

55

Examples of Pedestrian and 

Appendix B: Bicycle Safety Plans

Agencies across the United States have developed plans 

to respond to pedestrian and bicycle safety. The list below 

is not exhaustive, but provides a range of plans that may 

provide inspiration to those interested in developing a 

safety action plan of their own.

Statewide Plans

California State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan 

(http://www.goactiveca.org/) 

Florida Pedestrian and Bicycle Strategic 

Safety Plan (http://www.fdot.gov/safety/6-Resources/

FloridaPedestrianandBicycleStrategicSafetyPlan.pdf)

New York State Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (https://www.

ny.gov/pedestrian-safety-action-plan/pedestrian-safety-action-plan)

Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Implementation 

Plan (https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/TRAFFIC-ROADWAY/Pages/

Bicycle_Pedestrian_Safety.aspx) 

Arizona Bicycle Safety Action Plan (http://azbikeped.org/

downloads/archive/2012-09-Bicycle_Safety_Action_Plan.pdf) and 

Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (http://azbikeped.org/downloads/

archive/2009-06-Pedestrian_Safety_Action_Plan.pdf)

Local Plans

New York City Pedestrian Safety Action Plans (http://www.nyc.

gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/ped-safety-action-plan.shtml)

Safe Mobility Santa Ana (http://www.santa-ana.org/smsa/) 

Los Angeles Vision Zero Action Plan (http://visionzero.lacity.org/

wp-content/uploads/2017/04/VisionZeroActionPlan-2017.pdf) 

Chicago Streets for Cycling Plan 2020 

(https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/cdot/bike/general/

ChicagoStreetsforCycling2020.pdf) 

County and Regional Plans

Hillsborough County Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (http://

www.tampabaytrafficsafety.com/Engineering/Shared%20Documents/

BWTB/Pedestrian%20Safety%20Action%20Plan%20-%20Hillsborough.pdf) 

San Antonio-Bexar County Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan (http://www.alamoareampo.org/Bike-Ped/docs/

PedestrianSafetyActionPlan.pdf)

C

57

Checklist of Safety 

Appendix C: Action Plan Elements

The following checklist provides agencies with a framework for quickly evaluating their safety action plan based 

on the components recommended in this guide. Use the 

checklist to evaluate existing plans or create a framework for a new plan.

Goals and Objectives

1. Commitment to safety for all modes should be the

number one goal and priority of state and local transportation agencies. Once this commitment is made, it allows

transportation agencies to allocate funds to reducing all

crash types, including pedestrian and bicyclist crashes.

■ Do you have a clearly stated commitment to safety as

your number one priority? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that safety becomes the number one priority of

your agency?

2. Clear objectives are needed for a pedestrian and

bicycle safety action plan to be successful in reducing

crashes. They allow for the development of practical and

achievable strategies; they also provide a way to measure

progress over time. To be effective, objectives must be

specific and measurable.

■ Do you have a clearly stated objective for reducing

pedestrian and bicyclist crashes? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that objectives are adopted?

Data Collection and Analysis 

3. Crash data are essential to identify high-crash locations,

corridors, and/or larger areas and to select appropriate

improvements to make conditions safer for pedestrians

and other roadway users.

■ Do you have direct access to updated

crash data? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that crash data are available?

4. Pedestrian and bicyclist counts along with field observations can be very useful in understanding road user

behavior and in considering the need for facilities. Counts

and behavior studies, when combined with crash data,

can also provide insights into specific crash causes and

potential countermeasures.

■ Do you routinely collect counts and other

observational data? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that pedestrian and bicyclist counts and observations

are routinely completed?

5. Inventories of sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, crosswalks and other facilities can help identify system gaps

and unsafe conditions. When combined with crash

data, counts, and traffic characteristics, they can be very

useful in prioritizing locations for countermeasures and

other improvements.

■ Do you routinely inventory pedestrian and bicycle

facilities? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that inventories of facilities are routinely completed?

6. Inventories of traffic characteristics (such as ADT, road

widths, and speeds) help identify likely crash locations.

When combined with actual crash data and pedestrian or

bicycle counts, they can be very useful in prioritizing locations for countermeasures and other improvements.

■ Do you routinely inventory roadway ADT, widths and

speeds? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that ADT, width and speed information is routinely

collected and coded?

7. Inventories of traffic characteristics (such as ADT, road

widths, and speeds) help identify likely crash locations.

When combined with actual crash data and pedestrian or

bicycle counts, they can be very useful in prioritizing locations for countermeasures and other improvements.
58

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan

■ Do you routinely inventory roadway ADT, widths and

speeds? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that ADT, width and speed information is routinely

collected and coded?

Stakeholder Engagement 

8. Individual stakeholder involvement is an excellent way

to get a better product. Public stakeholders should be

viewed as partners who are the on-the-ground scouts

who can identify problems, needs and opportunities. To

be effective, stakeholders must be involved in a regular,

ongoing, and systematic way.

■ Do you routinely provide for individual stakeholder

involvement? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that stakeholders are routinely involved?

9. A pedestrian and bicycle advisory board is another

excellent way to get a better product. They also build

public support for policies, programs, and projects to

reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes. To be effective,

stakeholders must be involved in the review of policies,

programs and projects.

■ Do you have an advisory that regularly reviews policies,

programs, and projects? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

the creation of an effective PAB?

10. Not all members of the community feel engaged with

government agencies and feel empowered to become

involved in the planning process. In particular, communities that have been disadvantaged may be reluctant to

engage with government agencies. Individuals with vision,

mobility, or other impairments may not have the tools

needed to engage in traditional ways.

■ Do you use strategies to foster community engagement

among traditionally underserved, disadvantaged, or

differently-abled populations? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure a

more equitable approach to public engagement?

11. Public agency staff in other agencies are also stakeholders. Building positive, working relationships is essential for coordination on regional planning issues; it also

provides a way to coordinate on solving specific problems 

such as identifying high-crash locations where additional 

enforcement may be needed, and coordinating transit 

stops with crossing locations.

■ Do you routinely coordinate with other agencies on

crash, transit, etc., issues? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

you coordinate with other agencies?

Selecting Safety 

Improvements 

12. Conducting field reviews and safety audits can be

used to identify how each crash occurred, and what may

be done to prevent future similar crashes. The outcome

is a list of improvements that can be implemented to

address those crashes and enhance safety.

■ Do you routinely conduct field reviews and safety

audits? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to

ensure that field reviews and safety audits are

routinely completed? 

13. Crash typing describes the pre-crash actions of the

parties involved. When crashes are typed, a pattern can

emerge that helps identify what the problem is and what

countermeasures are generally related to each crash type.

■ Do you routinely “crash type” your pedestrian and

bicyclist crash data? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that crash typing is routinely completed?

14. A comprehensive approach to improving safety

requires a balance of policy changes, design improvements and countermeasures, and behavioral programs.

■ Do your safety programs include recommendations for

policy changes, roadway design and countermeasure

deployment, and programs to address road user

behaviors? Yes / No

■ If not, how can you expand your programs to include a

more comprehensive approach?
Appendix C. Checklist of Safety Action Plan Elements

59

Implementation and 

Evaluation 

15. Routine accommodation for pedestrians and bicyclists in all projects, programs, and maintenance activities

is the most cost-effective funding strategy for reducing

crashes and encouraging more walking and bicycling.

The majority of infrastructure is built in conjunction with

other projects. It allows for significant improvements over 

time, even if there is no special funding available for

safety improvements. ■ Do you routinely include pedestrian and bicycle

safety improvements in all projects, programs, and

maintenance activities? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted

to ensure that pedestrian and bicycle safety

improvements are included?

16. Dedicated funds and set-asides for projects allow for

immediate action in addressing high-crash locations, corridors, and other targeted areas. They can be federal, state or

local funds and are often a percentage of another fund. ■ Do you routinely set aside funds that are dedicated to

pedestrian and bicyclist safety? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that funds are routinely set aside?

17. Evaluation of results ensures that implemented solu-

tions are effective in reducing crashes and improving

the safety and accessibility of pedestrian facilities; it also

helps ensure future funding opportunities if the plan

is perceived as a success. Success should be measured

against the objectives set forth in the safety action plan. ■ Do you routinely evaluate results of your efforts to

reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes? Yes / No

■ If not, what change(s) need to be instituted to ensure

that regular evaluation occurs?
For More Information:

visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/

FHWA, Office of Safety

Tamara Redmon

tamara.redmon@dot.gov

(202) 366-4077

FHWA-SA-17-050