Stay Informed!

FHWA-SA-20-068
FHWA-SA-20-068

Stay Informed!
FHWA-SA-20-068

Stay Informed!

Equity in Vision Zero - 

Oregon Metro, OR

Fletcher Avenue Complete 

Streets Redesign - 

Hillsborough, FL

Improved Nighttime 

Lighting - Fremont, CA

Milwaukee Avenue 

Rapid Delivery Approach 

- Chicago, IL

Speed Managment 

Projects - West Palm 

Beach, FL

Traffic Safety Camera 

Program - Portland, OR

Walking Audits - 

Broward County, FL

Media Campaign - 

Boulder, CO

Safest Driver Contest - 

Boston, MA

State and Local Zero 

Deaths Reports Success Stories Other Materials

The Texas Experience

The Colorado Experience

The Florida Experience

Systemic Safety Analysis 

- San Diego, CA

Rainier Avenue South 

Redesign - Seattle, WA

Zero Traffic Fatalities 

Task Force and Speed 

Limit Setting Report - CA

Noteworthy Speed 

Management Practices

MPO Guidelines for 

Using Safety Project 

Prioritization Factor

Safe System Brochure

Road Safety 

Fundamentals

Pedestrian fatalities are on the rise compared to all traffic 

fatalities. To reduce pedestrian failities, the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) is making an effort to reduce pedestrian 

fatalities and injuries at uncontrolled crossing locations through 

Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP). FHWA’s actions 

through the STEP program also promote Vision Zero efforts. Vision 

Zero aims to eliminate traffic fatatilities by improving safety 

across all transportation systems. Vision Zero uses a Safe Systems 

apporach, believing that humans make mistakes, and roadways 

should be designed in a way so that if a crash occurs as a result 

of these mistakes it would not result in a fatality. Additionally, 

Safe Systems encourages shared responsibility between 

roadway designers and users. Safe designs can promote safe 

behaviors. 

Most of the STEP countermeasures have been evaluated for 

their effectiveness to reduce pedestrian crash rates, which 

supports the Vision Zero approach. The Crash Reduction Factor 

(CRF) is reported for each countermeasure below, based on 

national transportation safety studies. The CRF is the expected 

percent reduction in the number of pedestrian crashes after 

implementing a countermeasure. CRFs on this poster are 

presented in terms of total crashes unless otherwise indicated. 

Please consult PEDSAFE, the Pedestrian Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System (http://www.pedbikesafe.

org), for more information about CRFs and guidance for 

application of these countermeasures to various roadway and 

safety conditions. 

Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian

Proven Countermeasures

CROSSWALK VISIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS CRF (see notes): 23–48% 2–7

Crosswalk visibility enhancements are added features that increase the 

prominence of crosswalks and pedestrians to oncoming drivers, such 

as lighting, warning signage, or varied crosswalk markings. Common 

examples include using a ladder design for the crosswalk markings 

(instead of two parallel lines) and installing in-street warning signage.

RAISED CROSSWALK CRF (ped. crashes): 45% 8

Raised crosswalks span the width of a roadway at a crossing point, often at 

mid-block crossings. These raised speed tables calm vehicular traffic and 

create a level crossing at sidewalk height for pedestrians.

PEDESTRIAN REFUGE ISLAND CRF (ped. crashes): 32% 3

Pedestrian refuge islands are islands within a street, located at 

intersections or mid-block crossings. Pedestrian refuge islands break up a 

complex crossing into two shorter crossings and separate motor vehicle 

and pedestrian crossing movements.

PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON (PHB) CRF (ped. crashes): 55% 3

PHBs are pedestrian-activated warning devices designed for higher 

speed, multilane roadways. PHBs are typically installed at the side of the 

road or on mast arms over uncontrolled midblock pedestrian crossings. 

When activated, the device displays a sequence of flashing yellow, 

steady yellow, solid red (pedestrians get a walk symbol; drivers must stop), 

and flashing red (pedestrians finish crossing; drivers stop and proceed 

once the roadway is clear).

ROAD DIET CRF (total crashes): 19–47% 9,10,11

Road Diets reconfigure the roadway to improve safety for all users. 

The most common type of Road Diet involves converting a four-lane, 

undivided roadway to two through lanes and a center two-way leftturn lane. This new configuration may include pedestrian refuge islands, 

curb extensions, sidewalks, or other features to improve conditions for 

pedestrians.

RECTANGULAR RAPID-FLASHING BEACON (RRFB) CRF (ped. crashes):47% 3

RRFBs are pedestrian-actuated conspicuity enhancements to improve 

safety at uncontrolled crossing locations. The device includes two 

rectangular-shaped yellow indications, each with an LED-array-based 

light source, that flash with high frequency and are used in tandem with a 

pedestrian crossing warning sign. RRFBs are installed on both sides of the 

roadway at the crosswalk, or on the right side and median (instead of the 

left side) of median-divided roadways. The flashing pattern is pedestrianactivated by pushbuttons or automated detection and is unlit when not 

activated.

LEADING PEDESTRIAN INVERVAL (LPI) CRF (ped. crashes):13% 12

LPIs provice pedestrians a 3 to 7 second head start in a crosswalk during 

the WALK signal. Programmed into traffic signals, LPIs help reduce the 

number of conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles. 

Pedestrians accounted for17% of all roadway fatalities in the US in 2018.1

74%of pedestrian fatalities occurred

at non-intersection locations.1

References:

1NHTSA query (January 2020), https://cdan.dot.gov/query

2CRFs for each countermeasure component are as follows: Advance STOP or YIELD markings and signs: pedestrian crashes, 25%. High-visibility crosswalk markings: 

pedestrian crashes, 48%. Parking restrictions on crosswalk approaches: total crashes, 30%. The addition of overhead lighting: total injury crashes, 23%.

3Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2017.

4Harkey, D.L., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, F. Council, K. Eccles, N. Lefler, F. Gross, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, E. Hauer, and J. Bonneson. NCHRP Report 617: Accident Modification Factors for 

Traffic Engineering and ITS Improvements. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008.

5Chen, L., C. Chen, R. Ewing, C.E. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Roe. “Safety Countermeasures and Crash Reduction in New York City—Experience and Lessons Learned.” 

Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012.

6Feldman, M., J. Manzi, and M. Mitman. “An Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of the Safety Effects of High-Visibility School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San Francisco, California.” 

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 8-14.

7Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. “Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects.” 

Final report. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2005.

8Elvik, R., P. Christensen, and A. Amundsen. “Speed and Road Accidents An Evaluation of the Power Model.” Transportokonomisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway, 2004.

9CRF is 19% for urban areas (Pawlovich et al.) and 47% for suburban areas (Persaud et al.).

10Pawlovich, M.D., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch. “Iowa’s Experience with Road Diet Measures—Use of Bayesian Approach to Assess Impacts on Crash Frequencies and Crash Rates.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1953, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.

11Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bhim. “Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes approaches for before–after road safety evaluations.” Accident Analysis & 

Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 38-43. 

12Goughnour, E., Carter, D., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Lan, B., Chun, P., ... Signor, K. “Safety Evaluation of Protected Left Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on 

Pedestrian Safety.” Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044, Washington, D.C., 2018. 

pedestrian hybrid beacon road diet—before

pedestrian refuge island

Illustrations not to scale

R1-6a

W11-2, W16-7P

road diet—after

Source: Peter Eun, FHWA

EDC-5 STEP:https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/edc_5/step2.cfm

leading pedestrian interval

R1-6a W11-2, W16-7P

median can enhance visibility 

of the pedestrian crossing and 

reduce speed of approaching 

vehicles.

A pedestrian hybrid beacon is a 

traffic control device that stops 

all lanes of traffic, which can 

reduce pedestrian crashes.

refuge area breaks up a complex 

crossing into two shorter pieces, 

providing a place to rest and 

reducing the amount of time a 

pedestrian is in the roadway.

road diets narrow travel lane widths or 

reconfigure travel lanes, typically from 

a 4-to-3 lane cross section, to reduce 

pedestrian crossing distances and 

provide options for bicycle lanes or 

on-street parking. 

crosswalk visibility enhancements raised crosswalk

R1-6a

in-street stop or

yield signs may 

improve driver 

yielding rates.

curb extension visually narrows 

the travel lane, improves sight 

distance between drivers and 

pedestrians, and reduces the 

amount of time pedestrians 

are in the roadway.

high-visibility marking improves 

visibility of the crosswalk, 

compared to the standard 

parallel lines.

approach ramps may reduce 

vehicle speeds and improve 

motorist yielding.

elevated crossing makes the 

pedestrian more prominent in 

the driver’s field of vision, and 

allows pedestrians to cross at 

grade with the sidewalk.

W11-2, W16-7P R1-6a W11-2, W16-7P

rectangular rapid-flashing beacon

lighting illuminates the front of the 

pedestrian and avoids creating a 

silhouette.

advance yield or stop markings

& signs increase motorist 

yielding while reducing risk 

of a multiple-threat crash.

trail crossings are made more 

visible by RRFBs when coupled with 

crosswalk visibility enhancements 

and a refuge island. The PHB should 

be considered as an option to the 

RRFB along highways with high traffic 

volumes or speeds.

R1-5

W11-2, W16-7P

leading pedestrian interval is programmed into the 

WALK signal to give pedestrians a head start in 

the crosswalk, which can reduce conflicts with 

vehicles.

walk signal 

provides pedestrians 

a 3-7 second head 

start. 

For more information contact: 

Becky Crowe

FHWA Office of Safety 

202-507-3699

Chimai Ngo

FHWA Office of Safety 

202-366-1231

Safe Transportatioon for 

Every Pedestrian Poster

A Guide for Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations 

and Local Communities
FHWA-SA-20-068

Stay Informed!

ROUNDABOUTS FLOOR DECAL - 54”X54” 

(can be scaled proportionately to any size)

FHWA Floor Decal FHWA Website Links