Planning for Safe Routes to School 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

New Gretna, New Jersey 

March 2008 
Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning 

to shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, 

Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; 

and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical 

assistance and services; conducts high-priority studies that respond to the requests and demands 

of member state and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a 

consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and 

practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the Commission. 

Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image 

of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole, while the 

diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. 

DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s 

state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings 

and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. 

DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website may be translated into Spanish, Russian, and 

Traditional Chinese online by visiting www.dvrpc.org. Publications and other public documents can 

be made available in alternative languages or formats, if requested. For more information, please 

call (215) 238-2871. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 1 

1. Project background 2 

2. Audit area overview 3 

3. Audit summary 5 

3.1. Audit findings 6 

3.1.1. New York Road (US Route 9) 6 

3.1.2. North Maple Avenue (CR 679) 7 

3.1.3. South Maple Avenue 7 

3.1.4. Behavior 7 

3.2. Principal recommendations 9 

4. Next steps10 

Appendices 

A. Audit team A-1 

B. Audit agenda B-1 

C. Audit tool C-1 

D. Pedestrian and motorist behavior observation sheet D-1 

E. Audit day photo log E-1 

Figures 

1. Street map of study area 4 

2. Aerial view of study area 5 

Tables 

1. Problems and solutions identified by audit team 8 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 1 

Bass River Township School 

Executive Summary 

This report documents the process, findings, and recommendations of a road safety audit focusing 

on juvenile pedestrians in the vicinity of Bass River Elementary School, New Gretna, New Jersey. 

The road safety audit was conducted on May 29, 2007. 

The audit team found deficiencies in sidewalk availability and connectivity, crosswalk visibility, and 

wheelchair access throughout the study area; and that vehicle speeds and visibility pose unacceptable risks to children crossing US Route 9. 

Recommendations include small to moderate capital projects to remedy the deficiencies and “quick 

fixes” that could be implemented immediately to improve safety. Funds for capital projects may be 

applied for through the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s (NJDOT) “Safe Routes to 

School” program.

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
2 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

1. Project background 

Over the past generation, student travel to primary school by walking and bicycling has declined 

dramatically across the United States: in 1970, nearly 65 percent of all children walked or biked to 

school, compared to less than 15 percent in 2000. Simultaneously, childhood obesity has increased to the level of an epidemic. The causal link between these two trends has become widely 

accepted. A growing body of research has linked the two trends with fundamental environmental 

changes, including suburban sprawl, an ever-increasing speed and volume of motor traffic which 

endangers pedestrians, and roads designed and maintained without consideration of pedestrian 

safety and amenity, which conspire to discourage people from walking. 

An international movement dedicated to reversing these trends, called “Safe Routes to School,” has 

succeeded in enacting legislation, at the state and federal level, to fund local projects to enable and 

encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school—and to make 

walking and bicycling to school safe and appealing. A Safe Routes provision in the most recent 

federal surface transportation act, SAFETEA-LU, requires a Safe Routes coordinator in every state, 

and provides funds for Safe Routes projects administered through the state departments of transportation. 

In accordance with this federal emphasis area, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC) has initiated a study project to assist school districts and municipalities in identifying 

roadway improvements eligible for funding under Safe Routes to School, while demonstrating innovative tools and techniques for Safe Routes planning that may show promise for broader application. Road safety audits (RSAs) are increasingly used by road agencies to identify and correct 

safety deficiencies proactively and they should prove useful in planning for Safe Routes to School. 

An RSA is a type of charrette involving a team of experts in road safety who, with the aid of a 

checklist, identify and document conditions affecting safety found during a field view of the road 

being audited. A post-audit debriefing is then held, during which participants reach a consensus on 

problems and solutions. This project seeks to demonstrate the application of RSAs, with a sole focus on the safety of juvenile pedestrians on streets and highways proximate to primary schools, as 

a tool to identify projects for Safe Routes to School funding. 

The principal goal of Safe Routes to School is to increase the number of walking and bicycling trips 

to school. Engineering improvements are an important component of a successful program, but, 

implemented alone, are insufficient to assure success. Successful programs also include enforcement, education, encouragement, and evaluation components. For these reasons, study sites were 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 3 

Bass River Elementary School 

sought near schools where parents, administrators and local officials are involved in an ongoing, 

multifaceted Safe Routes program, and have expressed interest in the audit process and the implementation of any recommendations resulting from it. 

One site each in Pennsylvania and New Jersey was selected for study. Bass River Elementary 

School in New Gretna, Burlington County, was selected based on a recommendation from Cross 

County Connection Transportation Management Association. The Township passed a resolution in 

2005 expressing the desire to participate in NJDOT’s Safe Routes to School Demonstration Program. Subsequent contact by DVRPC staff with municipal officials confirmed a high degree of local 

interest in conducting the audit. The audit was conducted on the afternoon of Tuesday, May 29, 

2007. The RSA recommendations presented in this report are intended for use in prioritizing improvements to be implemented cooperatively by the Township of Bass River, the Burlington County 

Engineering Department, and NJDOT. 

2. Audit area overview

Bass River Elementary School is located at 11 North Maple Avenue in New Gretna, Burlington 

County, New Jersey. New Gretna is a rural village of low-density residential housing and small 

roadside “food and fuel” establishments. See figure 1 on page 4 for a street map and figure 2 on 

page 5 for an aerial photo of the study area. Although approximately 63 percent of the school’s 

student body of 120 lives within two miles of school, only eight percent walk or bike to school. 

US 9, a highway known locally as New York Road, is located within one block of the school. US 9 is 

a rural minor arterial that carries an average of 10,500 vehicles daily on a two-lane section with 

shoulders. This road, a major north-south shore route oriented east-west within the study area, 

conjoins with the Garden State Parkway just south of the study area limits. North Maple Avenue, 

County Road 679, is a two-lane rural major collector that terminates at US 9; the road continues 

south of US 9 as South Maple Avenue, a local street. Traffic volume data are not available for 

North Maple Avenue. The audit area included US 9 between Teaberry Lane and the Bass River 

bridge; North Maple Avenue from US 9 to West Road; and South Maple Avenue from US 9 south 

approximately 0.3 miles where the road makes a sharp turn westward. 

Speed limits are posted at 35 mph on both North Maple Avenue and US 9, and at 25 mph on South 

Maple Avenue. The speed limit on North Maple Avenue increases to 40 mph just beyond the study 

area limit, and to 50 mph less than 0.4 miles beyond that. On US 9 the speed limit increases just 

beyond the study area limit to 45 mph southbound and to 50 mph northbound. None of the roads 

audited have on-street parking. 
4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

The intersection of North and South Maple Avenue with US 9 is the only signalized intersection in 

the study area. Crosswalks at this intersection are 65 and 55 feet long across US 9, and 40 feet 

long crossing North and South Maple avenues. A convenience store is located on the intersection’s 

southeastern corner. Stops are sign-controlled on all other local streets where they intersect with 

US 9 or North Maple Avenue. 

New Jersey Transit’s 559 bus line operates on Route 9 to Atlantic City and Lakewood hourly in each 

direction. There are no bus shelters on the route within the study area. 

Figure 1: Street map of study area 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 5 

Bass River Elementary School 

There were no reported crashes involving pedestrians within the study area from 2003 through 

2005. The crash data was provided by NJDOT for DVRPC’s traffic safety related transportation 

planning and programming purposes only. The raw data remains the property of NJDOT and its 

release to third parties is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the Department. 

3. Audit summary 

The audit was conducted on Tuesday, May 29, 2007. Members of the audit team are listed in 

Appendix A. See Appendix B for the agenda. The weather was sunny and warm. The audit team 

walked each on each side of all of the streets described in section 2 and recorded conditions using 

Figure 2: Aerial view of study area 
6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

the audit tool presented in Appendix C. Between 3:00 and 3:30 P.M., the audit team observed 

pedestrian and motorist behavior during school dismissal on North Maple Avenue in front of the 

school and at the intersections US 9 and North Maple Avenue. Behavioral observations were 

recorded using the Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior Observation Sheet presented as Appendix D. 

Photographic documentation of conditions taken before and during the audit is presented in 

appendices E and F. 

3.1. Audit findings 

Table 1 on the page 8 presents the findings and recommendations of the audit team as recorded by 

the facilitator during the post-audit debriefing. The audit team was asked to score, on a scale of -2 

to +2, the benefit to pedestrians, the impact on other road users, cost, and local impacts (e.g., 

loss of parking, loss of landscaping, noise, light pollution, etc.) for each recommendation. The 

scoring system presumes that higher scored recommendations should take priority over those 

receiving lower total scores. The problems, solutions, and scores presented in table 1 reflect a 

consensus of the audit team. Solutions receiving a total score of +5 or higher are highlighted in 

blue. The scoring exercise is intended to assist the audit team in prioritizing actions. 

3.1.1. New York Road (US Route 9) 

The audit team found these conditions throughout: 

 discontinuous sidewalks; 

 highway guide signs mounted too low, obstructing the pedestrian way; 

 unchannelized motor access to commercial properties; and 

 excessive motor vehicle speeds. 

Of primary concern to the audit team was the perceived high volume and speed of A.M. peak 

traffic. 

While Route 9 has wide shoulders, the audit team observed drivers drifting into the shoulder 

inattentively, using the shoulder to overtake left-turning vehicles on the right, and parking in the 

shoulder. The audit team agreed that an existing shoulder taper at the intersection with Maple 

Avenue encourages improper passing behavior. 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 7 

Bass River Elementary School 

Some audit team members thought that the location of bus stops should be reevaluated from a 

safety perspective. Poor drainage at the Maple Avenue intersection was also cited as a problem, 

although one not evident during the audit due to dry weather. 

3.1.2. North Maple Avenue (CR 679) 

The audit team found these general conditions: 

 discontinuous or deteriorated sidewalks on the roadway’s west side; 

 No sidewalk on the east side; and 

 inadequate, deteriorated, and misplaced traffic control devices, including faded signs, a 

route marker blocking the sidewalk, a sign and a crosswalk pavement marking not 

conforming with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), and incomplete 

installation of pedestrian signal actuator buttons. 

The team also discovered that the southbound 25 mph school zone is marked to begin directly in 

front of the school. 

3.1.3. South Maple Avenue 

The audit team found traffic to be virtually absent during the early weekday afternoon of the audit. 

Despite its light traffic load and local service characteristics, this residential street is designed like a 

highway, with a minimum 24-foot width, a centerline, and fog lines. Sidewalks are nonexistent. In 

the Southbound direction, this straight road takes a sharp right curve as it reaches the Garden 

State Parkway right-of-way. The team was also concerned about excessive vehicle speeds. 

3.1.4. Behavior 

During school dismissal, vehicles stacked briefly on southbound North Maple Avenue while waiting 

to enter the school driveway, blocking the driveway crosswalk. 
8 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 

Table 1: Problems and solutions identified by audit team 

Solutions with total scores of +5 or higher highlighted in blue Priority scores 

Street Location Category Description Solution 

Pedestrian benefit Impacts on other road users Cost Local impacts Total 

N Maple west side sidewalks 

sidewalks stop 475 ft short 

of West Rd extend sidewalk to West Rd 2 0 -1 0 1 

N Maple west side sidewalks 

#s 25, 35, 39: bad sidewalks replace 2 0 0 1 3 

N Maple 

in front of 

school sidewalks Rt 9 sign is an obstruction relocate 2 0 2 0 4 

N Maple 

driveways: 

church, school sidewalks no tactile warnings install tactile warnings 2 0 1 0 3 

N Maple east side sidewalks no sidewalks install sidewalks 2 0 -2 -2 -2 

N Maple old sch bldg facilities insufficient crosswalks 

install & relocate: north 

driveway of school (south 

side) w/ flashers 2 1 -1 0 2 

N Maple school zone facilities 

school zone sign not to 

MUTCD replace 0 0 2 0 2 

N Maple Rt 9 facilities 

pushbutton on south side 

only 

install pushbutton/signal 

heads all around 2 -1 0 0 1 

N Maple Rt 9 facilities "Do not cross" signs faded replace 2 1 2 0 5 

N Maple Rt 9 facilities poor drainage @ ramps reevaluate at later date 2 0 TBD 0 2 

N Maple 

in front of 

school 

around 

schools 

25 mph zone begins at 

school move back school zone 2 -1 2 0 3 

Rt 9 various sidewalks 

lack of sidewalks most 

locations install sidewalks 2 0 -2 2 2 

Rt 9 house # 5681 visibility fence too close to road move fence back 2 0 0 1 3 

Rt 9 various sidewalks guide signs too low raise/relocate/replace 2 0 1 0 3 

Rt 9 various sidewalks open access to businesses 

install sidewalks/curbs, 

reconfigure driveways 2 0 -2 2 2 

Rt 9 bus stops 

questionable safety of 

locations 

investigate bus stop locations 2 1 1 1 5 

Rt 9 post office visibility parking in shoulder 

delineate permitted parking/install crosswalk 2 0 2 1 5 

Rt 9 throughout traffic/road excessive speed enforcement 2 1 1 2 6 

Rt 9 throughout traffic/road excessive speed visual cues 2 1 1 1 5 

Rt 9 post office visibility parking in shoulder gore/signs 1 1 1 0 3 

Rt 9 CR 679 facilities excessive speed bulb-outs (curb extensions) 2 0 -2 2 2 

S Maple length traffic/road excessive speed 

widen shoulders; eradicate 

centerline 1 0 0 1 2 

S Maple length traffic/road excessive speed install speed tables 1 0 -2 0 -1 

S Maple curve traffic/road excessive speed bigger chevrons 2 2 1 0 5 

Rt 9 intersection traffic/road improper passing eliminate shoulder taper 1 1 1 0 3 

N Maple school facilities cars blocking crosswalk educate parents 2 0 2 1 5 

N Maple school sidewalks no walkway to bldg construct walkway 2 0 -1 1 2 

N Maple school traffic/road stacking on N Maple 

extend driveway in front of 

original school bldg 1 2 -2 1 2 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 9 

Bass River Elementary School 

3.2. Principal recommendations 

Through the scoring exercise and subsequent discussion, the audit team reached consensus on 

priorities for safety improvements. Capital projects in order of priority are: 

 Installation of sidewalks on Route 9 and North Maple Avenue, with highest priority being the 

extension of the sidewalk on the west side of North Maple Avenue to West Road; 

 Extension of the school driveway toward the old schoolhouse to increase vehicle holding 

capacity and moving the entrance northward; 

 Construction of a new walkway to the school building entrance from the sidewalk; 

 Installation of additional pedestrian push-button signal actuators at the Route 9/Maple 

Avenue intersection; 

 Installation of curb extensions (“bulb-outs”) at the Route 9/Maple Avenue intersection to 

calm traffic and decrease crossing distance; 

 Management of access to commercial properties on Route 9, including definition of 

driveways with sidewalks and curbs; and 

 Eradication of centerline and relocation of fog lines to create wide shoulders on South Maple 

Avenue. 

“Quick fixes” identified by the audit team are numerous and include 

 Installation, relocation, or replacement of various worn, mislocated, or needed regulatory 

warning and route signs (detailed in Table 1); 

 Moving the start of the North Maple Avenue 25 mph school zone northward; and 

 Installation of tactile warning devices for the visually impaired on sidewalks at the school 

driveway and at a nearby church driveway. 

Of all the suggestions for action posed by the audit team, increased speed enforcement received 

the highest number of priority points. 

It was agreed that the drainage problem at the Route 9/Maple Avenue intersection would have to 

be addressed during the next road resurfacing, which will occur a number of years from now. The 

possible relocation of NJ Transit bus stops will require further study. 
10 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

4. Next steps 

The “quick fixes” should be implemented as soon as possible by NJDOT, Burlington County, and 

Bass River Township. Cross County Connection has offered to conduct a bus stop location study. 

A speed study on Route 9 and Maple Avenue should be conducted to provide an objective 

evaluation of the need for increased speed enforcement. 

The most difficult, expensive, and needed improvement is the installation of sidewalks. The 

Township has used limited Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to install sidewalks 

along a limited portion of the south side of North Maple Avenue, which it wishes to extend 

northward to West Road. It has applied for and was denied limited NJDOT Safe Routes to School 

funding to pay for that project. Although the application selection process is highly competitive, 

with no guarantee of funding, the Township should nonetheless resubmit its application for the next 

funding round. 

NJDOT and the Township should jointly prepare an access management plan for Route 9 through 

New Gretna and explore funding of the plan and its implementation through NJDOT’s local aid 

programs. 
Appendix A 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit A-3 

Bass River Elementary School 

Appendix A: Audit team

Name Title Affiliation 

Elise Bremer-Nei Safe Routes to School Coordinator New Jersey Department of Transportation 

Doug Dillon Traffic Engineer New Jersey Department of Transportation 

Martin C. Livingston Traffic Engineer Burlington County Engineering Department 

John Madera Sr. Transportation Planner Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Lawrence A. Mathis Jr. Principal Bass River Township Elementary School 

Gary Smith Director of Public Safety Bass River Township 

Amanda S. Somes Township Clerk Bass River Township 

Ronda Urkowitz Program Director Cross County Connection TMA 

Chris Van Brunt Traffic Safety Coordinator Burlington County Engineering Department 

Karen Yunk Traffic & Safety Engineer Federal Highway Administration NJ Division 

Appendix B 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit B-3 

Bass River Elementary School 

Appendix B: Audit agenda 

DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

Planning for Safe Routes to School 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Township Elementary School, New Gretna, NJ 

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 

AGENDA 

8:00 a.m. Meet in front of Bass River Twp. Building for A.M. observation briefing 

8:15 – 8:45 a.m. Observation of morning school arrival activity 

8:45 – 9:30 a.m. Pre-audit briefing 

a. Welcome and introductions 

b. Project background and purpose 

c. Overview of the audit process 

d. Study area background 

e. Explanation of the audit checklist 

9:30 – noon Pedestrian road safety audit 

a. N. Maple Avenue to West Road 

b. S. Maple Avenue to curve 

c. US 9, Maple Ave. to Oak Ln. 

d. US 9, Maple Ave. to Bass River 

 Noon – 1:00 p.m. Lunch (provided) 

1:00 – 3:00 p.m. Post-audit findings review and solutions assessment 

3:00 – 3:30 p.m. Observation of school dismissal activity 

3:30 – 4:00 p.m. Discussion of activity observations; next steps 

4:00 p.m. Adjourn 

Appendix C

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit C-3 

Bass River Elementary School 

Appendix C: Audit tool 

Location: US Route 9 

Auditor: .......................................................................................................

Date: 5/29/07 

Key N/A = not applicable 

Note: If a deficiency in the road and/or surrounding environment is identified, the auditor should specify details of the problem and 

the location in the Comment column. 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

1 Land use and pedestrian context 

1.1 List the key pedestrian generating land uses along the study route. 

2 Sidewalks/walkways 

2.1 Are sidewalks provided on both sides of the street? 

2.2 How wide are the sidewalks? 

2.2.1 Are the sidewalks wide enough (a) for shared use by bicycles? (b) 

to accommodate persons using mobility aids (e.g., cane, wheelchair)? (c) 

to accommodate groups of schoolchildren? 

 

2.3 Are the sidewalks continuous throughout the route? 

2.4 Is the sidewalk in good repair? 

a) clear of obstructions (e.g., poles, awnings, street furniture); 

b) no broken concrete or damaged paving etc.; 

c) clean surfaces (free of litter and dog mess); 

d) limited street furniture (that does not impede pedestrians accessibility). *  

* Note: Visually-impaired pedestrians prefer a free zone next to the 

building line (if fully paved sidewalk); 

 

e) smooth surfaces, but ‘anti-skid’; 

f) no uneven surface; 

g) no protruding tree roots; 

h) clear of overhanging foliage; 

i) no discontinuities in level or type/quality of construction. 

2.5 Are vehicles parking on the sidewalk? If yes, please specify problem 

and location. 

 

2.6 Are pedestrian facilities acceptable where passengers alight, for example, bus stops, school drop-off zones, etc.? Is seating and shade provided? 

 

2.7 Are vertical clearances sufficient for pedestrians (e.g., road signs are 

not mounted too low; tree branches are cut back)? 

 

2.8 Are there driveways with heavy vehicular traffic (volume or vehicle 

type), e.g., to parking garages and shopping centers? Are these driveways at the same level as the sidewalk? Are tactile ground surface indicators provided in accordance with ADA? Is there good pedestrian and 

driver visibility? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
C-4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School

Source: DVRPC, 2007 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

3 Pedestrian facilities and accessibility 

3.1 Are there curbs? Are the curbs in good condition? 

3.2 Do pedestrians have difficulty in crossing the road safely? 

3.2.1 Are there marked crosswalks? If yes, what type (e.g., transverse, 

continental, gore, textured, lit in-pavement)? 

 

3.2.2 Are crosswalks sited where people want to cross? 

3.2.3 Are the marked crosswalks well maintained and legible to motorists 

day and night? 

 

3.2.4 Are crosswalks clearly signed to motorists by the use of pedestrian 

warning signs? Are the signs high-visibility florescent yellow-green? 

 

3.2.5 Do motorists yield to pedestrians in crosswalks? 

3.2.6 Are there in-road yield-to-pedestrian channelizing devices in place? 

3.2.7 Does the site have audio tactile devices for vision impaired pedestrians? Are they working and audible?  

3.3 Are there pedestrian signal heads? If so, which type (man/hand, 

walk/don't walk, audible, countdown)? Are they working and in good condition? 

 

3.3.1 Are they push-button actuated? Are pedestrians likely to use the 

actuator? 

 

3.3.2 Can persons in wheelchairs reach the push button at pedestrian 

signals? 

 

3.3.3 Have pedestrians been given priority at signalized crossings on bus 

routes? 

 

3.3.4 At signalized crossings, do all pedestrians have adequate time to 

cross the road safely? 

 

3.4 Are curb ramps provided on all corners? 

3.4.1 Can visually-impaired people identify the crossing, (e.g., are tactile 

ground surface indicators provided in accordance with ADA)? 

 

3.4.2 Do the curb ramps provide a smooth change in level between the 

sidewalk and the road pavement? 

 

3.4.3 Are the ramp slopes appropriate? 

3.4.4 Is there sufficient space to turn wheelchair at top and bottom of 

ramp? 

 

3.4.5 Is drainage at/near curb ramps adequate to prevent water ponding? 

3.5 Are curb extensions used where appropriate? Are they clearly delineated?  

3.6 Are signs and pavement markings installed in accordance with 

MUTCD? 

 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit C-5 

Bass River Elementary School 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

4 Catering for pedestrian target groups 

4.1 Is there a predominance of special user groups (e.g., 

intoxicated, seniors, youths, young children, parents with 

strollers, disabled, tourists)? If yes, what type? 

 

4.2 Are there problems specific to these special user 

groups? 

 

4.3 Do pedestrians regularly misuse or ignore the pedestrian facilities? Please specify. 

 

5 Around schools 

5.1 Is there a school zone? 

5.2 What is the school zone speed limit? 

5.3 Is a school crossing provided? 

5.4 Is the crossing supervised? 

5.5 Are school entrances appropriately located? 

5.6 Are appropriate advance warning signs provided? 

5.7 Is there any parking (legal and illegal) that causes 

visibility obstruction to the crossing? 

 

6 Traffic and road environment 

6.1 What is the posted speed limit? 

6.2 How many travel lanes are on the roadway(s) (in each 

direction)? 

 

6.3 Are there parking lanes (or bus lanes) on the side of 

the road? 

 

6.4 Can parking be managed to maximize sight lines? 

6.5 Is traffic speed or volume a problem for pedestrians? 

Please specify. 

 

6.6 Are there traffic calming devices in place? If so, which 

type? 

 

6.7 Do these devices impede pedestrian movement? 

 

6.8 Are there any conflicts between vehicles (or bicycles 

and/or wheeled recreational devices) and pedestrians on 

sidewalks? 

 

6.9 Is a crash barrier necessary between the roadway and 

the sidewalk for pedestrian safety? 

 

7 Construction zones 

7.1 Are pedestrians warned of obstructions and temporary 

work hazards on their traveled path? 

 

7.2 Are alternative routes that provide suitable access for 

all pedestrians available during construction? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
C-6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

8 Signing 

8.1 Are street names clearly visible to pedestrians? 

8.2 Is it obvious how to get to the schools, parks, or bus 

stops? 

 

8.3 Are the signs visible day and night? 

 

9 Lighting 

9.1 Are crosswalks sufficiently lit for pedestrian and motorist visibility?  

9.2 Is the sidewalk adequately lit for pedestrians to see 

and feel safe? 

 

9.3 Are there dark places or hiding places that present a 

personal security issue? 

 

10 Visibility/sight distance 

10.1 Is driver’s sight distance to crosswalks adequate? 

10.2 Are pedestrians (including small pedestrians) waiting 

to cross the road visible to approaching motorists? 

 

10.3 Can pedestrians, including small children and persons in wheelchairs, see approaching vehicles?  

10.4 Are there temporary or permanent obstructions near 

the crossing facility (e.g., parked vehicles, roadside furniture, vegetation, fences, etc.)? 

 

11 Pedestrian fencing 

11.1 Is there a need for pedestrian fencing to channel 

pedestrians to cross the road safely or to prevent them 

from crossing the road at a particular location? 

 

11.2 Does the pedestrian fencing create a hazard to motorists? (for example, horizontal rails becoming a spearing 

hazard when impacted by an errant vehicle). 

 

12 Pedestrian amenities 

12.1 Is the pedestrian environment clean and pleasant? If 

not, please specify. 

 

12.2 Is antisocial behavior a problem? 

12.3 Are there seats and/or rest spots for pedestrians? 

12.4 Are there drinking fountains for pedestrians? 

12.5 Is there sufficient shelter and/or shade against the 

elements? 

 

12.6 Is the pedestrian environment integrated with the 

adjacent land uses? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Appendix D 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit D-3 

Bass River Elementary School 

Appendix D: Pedestrian and motorist behavior observation sheet 

Location: Bass River Elementary School 

Auditor: .......................................................................................................

Date: 5/29/07 

 

Issue Yes No Comment 

Are children walking in the street? 

 

Are children running across the street? 

 

Are children obeying the crossing guards? 

 

Are children entering the street from between 

parked cars? 

 

Are children entering cars from street side? 

 

Are drivers double parking? 

 

Are drivers blocking crosswalks? 

 

Are drivers obeying the crossing guards? 

 

Do unsupervised children look both ways before crossing the street? 

 

Do children wait for traffic to stop before crossing? 

 

Are adults supervising the crosswalks? 

 

Did you witness any conflicts, collisions, or 

near-collisions between motorists and pedestrians? 

 

Do drivers yield to pedestrians in the crosswalks? 

 

Do drivers obey the school zone speed limit? 

 

Other observations 

 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007

Appendix E

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit E-3 

Bass River Elementary School

Appendix E: Audit day photo log 

New York Road (US 9) 

Top and Middle: Morning traffic near 

North Maple Avenue. 

Bottom: Vehicle overtaking on the 

right in the shoulder. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
E-4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

Maple Avenue/US 9 Intersection 

Top left: View looking southeast across the 

intersection. A convenience store occupies the 

southeastern corner. The crosswalk in the 

foreground crosses US 9. 

Above: Crosswalk warning sign is placed beyond the crosswalk. 

Top right: A faded “pedestrians prohibited” 

sign directs pedestrians to use the crosswalk a 

few feet away to the right (just out of the picture frame). 

Right: The intersection has clearly marked 

transverse crosswalks, pedestrian signal 

heads, and wheelchair ramps with tactile 

warning devices. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit E-5 

Bass River Elementary School

New York Road (US 9) 

Top and middle left: Discontinuous 

sidewalk. 

Bottom left: Audit team walking along 

shoulder where sidewalks are absent. 

Above: Unchanneled vehicular access to 

roadside businesses creates a hazardous 

condition for pedestrians. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
E-6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

North Maple Avenue 

Top left: Brick paver sidewalk recently installed by the Township along the west side of 

the road. 

Left: Where the sidewalk ends. 

Bottom left: Narrow and deteriorated sidewalk in front of residential property. 

Above: No sidewalk on east side of roadway. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit E-7 

Bass River Elementary School

North Maple Avenue 

Top left and right: Clearly marked laddertype midblock crosswalks. 

Left: Pavement markings of unknown type, 

possibly intended as a crosswalk between 

the school and employee parking. 

Bottom left: Faded crosswalk at school 

driveway. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
E-8 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Bass River Elementary School 

South Maple Avenue 

The photos at left illustrate the highwaylike feel of this local street. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit E-9 

Bass River Elementary School

School dismissal 

Far left: Students walking home 

from school 

Left: A parent and child bicycling 

from school. 

Below: Vehicles stacking at school 

driveway block the crosswalk. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 

Planning for Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian Road Safety Audit: 

Bass River Elementary School, New Gretna, NJ 

Publication No.: 08021 

Date Published: March 2008 

Geographic Area Covered: Bass River Township (Burlington County) 

Key words: pedestrian, juvenile, road safety audit, Safe Routes to School 

Abstract: A road safety audit focusing on juvenile pedestrians was conducted on portions of US 9 

and CR 679 within 1⁄2 mile of Bass River Elementary School, New Gretna, Burlington County. Results and recommendations are presented. 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

190 North Independence Mall West 

8th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 

Phone: 215.592.1800 

Fax: 215.592.9125 

Internet: www.dvrpc.org

Contact: 

John Madera, PP, AICP 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Office of Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning 

215-238-2854 

jmadera@dvrpc.org