© 2015 USchools / iStock.

Complete Streets—

Safety Analysis 

In-Kyu Lim, Ph.D., P.E. 

Office of Safety and Operations Research and Development

Federal Highway of Administration (FHWA)

R.J. Porter, Ph.D., P.E., VHB

September 27, 2023

© 2015 USchools / iStock.
Disclaimer

This presentation was created and is being copresented by both FHWA and a contractor. 

The views and opinions expressed in this presentation are the presenters’ and do not 

necessarily reflect those of FHWA or the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 

The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy of the USDOT.

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the USDOT in the interest of 

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

information contained in this document. This document 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 presentation only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of the presentation. They are included for informational purposes 

only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, or endorsement of any one 

product or entity.

2
© 2015 USchools / iStock.

Welcome
Agenda 

► What are Complete Streets?*

► Project objective and overview.

► Analysis of sample Complete Streets projects and treatments.

► Assessment of Complete Streets treatment crash modification 

factors (CMFs) (FHWA 2023a). 

► CMF combination methods and safety analysis.

► Results and findings.

* Unless otherwise noted, Complete Streets in this presentation refers to the concept of Complete Streets as defined by FHWA (FHWA n.d.a).

4
What Are Complete Streets? 

► “A Complete Street is safe, and feels safe, for all users” 

(FHWA n.d.a).

► Complete Streets seek to improve safety, connectivity, 

and equity.

► FHWA adopted Complete Streets as the default 

approach to no-access-controlled roadways.

► Complete Streets embody the Safe System Approach 

(FHWA 2020).

► Complete Streets are increasingly advanced by Federal, 

State, and local agencies across the United States.

Before

© 2013 Google® Street View (Google 2013). 

After

© 2022 Google® Street View (Google 2022a). 

5
Complete Streets Elements 

Sidewalk Dedicated

bike lanes

Roadway Safe

crosswalks

Furnishing

zone

Green

spaces

Transit 

facilities

Source: FHWA.

6
Why Are Complete Streets Important? 

Pedestrian Fatalities

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA 2023).

► House Report (H.R.) 116-452 

encouraged USDOT to adopt a 

Complete Streets design model (U.S. 

Congress 2020).

► Moving to a Complete Streets Design 

Model identified five areas of 

opportunity (FHWA 2022a).

► FHWA’s Complete Streets efforts 

increased the proportion of Federal-aid 

funds that help create streets that are 

safe for all users. 

7
Project Motivation (1/2) 

► Data-driven safety analysis (DDSA) for project planning and the alternatives 

analysis process (FHWA 2022b) has seen growth in recent years.

► Practitioners have greater access to DDSA methods and tools, including CMFs 

(FHWA 2022b).

CMFs are used to compute the expected change in the number of crashes at a location after implementing a countermeasure

(or other change).

Example: 

Implement a leading pedestrian interval (LPI) – CMF Identification: 9906.

Crash type: Vehicle/pedestrian.

Crash severity: All.

CMF value = 0.81.

Implementing an LPI is expected to reduce vehicle/pedestrian crashes by 19 percent (1.00 – 0.81 = 0.19).

8
Project Motivation (2/2) 

► There is limited availability of CMFs for pedestrian/bicyclist treatments and crash 

types.

► Complete Streets transformations often include multiple treatments applied in 

combination.

► Methods for combining CMFs to estimate the safety effects of treatment 

combinations are at early testing stages.

► Safety analysis challenges and gaps can limit the ability to clearly “see” what the 

multimodal safety benefits of a Complete Streets project will be.

Addressing these gaps would help support broader implementation of Complete 

Streets projects, including more widespread applications beyond local roads.

9
Project Objective

Develop safety analysis report and primer that identifies and 

describes current CMF capabilities, best practices, and future 

needs for quantifying the performance of multiple safety 

treatments that agencies implement simultaneously during the 

conversion of typical streets to Complete Streets.

10
Project Activities 

Explore Complete 

Streets projects and 

identify safety 

treatments.

Task 1

Determine CMFs 

available for 

common Complete 

Streets treatments.

Task 2

Evaluate methods 

for combining CMFs 

using case studies.

Task 3

Identify existing 

gaps and develop a 

primer for Complete 

Streets 

stakeholders.

Task 4

Source: FHWA.

11
Treatment Combinations 

► Gathered sample of 85 Complete Streets projects 

from across the United States and associated data.

► Analyzed sample, focusing on arterial roadways with 

speed limits of 55 mph or less.

Source: FHWA.

Data Collected for Each Project

• Area type.

• Functional classification.

• Number of through lanes.

• Median presence.

• Number of intersections.

• Number of segments.

• Construction year.

• Geographic coordinates.

• Route and milepost information.

• Project description.

• Safety treatments implemented.

12
Complete Streets Safety Treatments

► The 85 projects implemented 80 individual safety treatments.

► These 80 treatments were screened and consolidated to create condensed list of 35 

treatments. The project team:

 Combined similar treatments that had been named differently in project documentation.

 Combined related treatments that performed a similar function.

 Excluded treatments related less to safety and more to comfort, aesthetics, or Americans with 

Disabilities Act compliance (FHWA 2018).

► The treatments on the condensed list were organized into four categories:

 Pedestrian/bicyclist (ped/bike).

 Transit.

 Traffic.

 Roadway configuration.

13
Common Treatment Combinations (1/3)

Total 

Number of 

Treatments

Number of 

Projects

Percent of 

Projects

1 9 10.6

2 11 12.9

3 13 15.3

4 15 17.6

5 13 15.3

6 12 14.1

7 1 1.2

8 2 2.4

9 6 7.1

10 1 1.2

11 1 1.2

15 1 1.2

Total 85 100.0

Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

62.3 percent

14.3 percent

Counted the number of 

treatments applied per project:

► Applied between three and 

six treatments to 62.3 

percent of projects.

► Applied more than seven 

treatments to 14.3 percent 

of projects.

14
Common Treatment Combinations (2/3)

Area Type: Treatment Category

Number 

of 

Projects

Percent of 

Projects

Rural: Ped/bike and roadway configuration 5 71.4

Rural: Ped/bike and traffic and roadway configuration 2 28.6

Rural: Total 7 100.0

Urban: Ped/bike 3 13.0

Urban: Ped/bike and roadway configuration 17 73.9

Urban: Ped/bike and traffic & roadway configuration 3 13.0

Urban: Total 23 100.0

Urbanized: Ped/bike (Urbanized) 17 30.9

Urbanized: Transit 1 1.8

Urbanized: Ped/bike and transit 2 3.6

Urbanized: Ped/bike and traffic 2 3.6

Urbanized: Ped/bike and roadway configuration 21 38.2

Urbanized: Ped/bike and transit & roadway configuration 5 9.1

Urbanized: Ped/bike and traffic & roadway configuration 6 10.9

Urbanized: Ped/bike and transit and traffic and roadway 

configuration 1 1.8

Urbanized: Total 55 100.0

Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

► Examined most common area type 

and treatment category type(s):

 Majority were urbanized/urban.

 Majority (all but one project) 

included ped/bike treatments. 

► Examined most common treatment 

categories:

 Ped/bike and roadway 

configuration: 44.

 Ped/bike: 20.

 Ped/bike and traffic and roadway 

configuration: 11.

15
Common Treatment Combinations (3/3)

► Identified the six most common single treatments: 

Add or enhance 

sidewalk 29

Add bike 

lane 26

Add or enhance

lighting 25

Add separated 

bike lane 24

Add bicyclist and 

pedestrian path/trail 24

Add or enhance 

crosswalk 24

Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

► Analyzed most common combinations of two, three, and four treatments:

With added or enhanced sidewalk (29 projects).

With added or enhanced crosswalk (15 projects).

With added or enhanced lighting (8 projects).

With added curb extension/bulb-out (6 projects).

Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

16
Diagnostic Validation of Treatment 

Combinations

► Considers commonalities:

 Common crash types on arterials.

 Common treatment combinations applicable to different area types, facility types, 

project types, etc.

► Draws from additional sources:

 Project team expertise.

 FHWA Complete Street Transformations scenarios (FHWA 2022c).

 Scenario appendix of 2022 Atlanta Regional Commission Regional Safety Strategy 

(Atlanta Regional Commission 2022).

► Validates findings and identifies additional treatments:

 Remove shoulder.

 Convert flush median to raised median.

 Decrease roadway or lane width.

 Add bus island/floating bus stop or add bus boarding platform.

Source: FHWA (FHWA 2022b).

17
CMF Capabilities and Needs 

► Total CMFs for the 80 individual treatments: 718.

► Total CMF availability summarized for 15 most common 

treatments, plus 4 treatments from diagnostic review.

► Several common treatments without any CMFs:

 Add curb extension/bulb-out.

 Convert flush median to raised median.

 Add bus island/floating bus stop or add bus boarding platform.

18
CMF Capabilities and Needs (Snapshot) 

Summary of CMF availability for treatments that are part of common treatment combinations on Complete Streets (Porter et al. forthcoming).

Treatment Name Number of 

Studies

Number of 

CMFs

Average CMF 

Star Rating 

(Min-Max Star 

Range)

Average CMF 

(Min-Max 

CMF Range)

Available 

Crash 

Type CMFs: 

All

Available Crash 

Type CMFs: 

Vehicle/pedestrian

Available Crash 

Type CMFs: 

Vehicle/bicycle

Other

Most Severe Crash 

Severity CMF 

Available

Add bike lane 6 8 2.1 (1-4) 0.68 (0.19-1.49) X - X - KABC

Add bicyclist and pedestrian path/trail 2 2 2.0 (2) 0.79 (0.75-0.83) - - X - KABCO

Add curb extension/bulb-out None - - - - - - - -

Add or enhance crosswalk (including 

high visibility) 3 4 2.8 (2-4) 0.60 (0.35-0.81) X X - X KABCO

Add or enhance lighting 13 32 3.2 (2-4) 0.69 (0.00-1.39) X X X X K

Add or enhance midblock crossing 1 1 4.0 (4) 0.82 (0.82) - X - - KABCO

Add or enhance pedestrian and 

bicyclist signal operation 12 48 3.2 (1-5) 0.85 (0.30-1.10) X X - X K

Add or enhance sidewalk 4 8 2.8 (2-3) 1.79 (0.41-3.09) X - X - KA

Add or enhance traffic signal operation 25 89 3.1 (1-5) 0.87 (0.23-2.43) X X - X K

Add pedestrian-actuated signal or 

beacon 6 22 3.6 (1-5) 0.66 (0.27-1.18) X X - X KABC

Min = minimum; Max = maximum; KABC = injury crash severities; KABCO = all crash severities; K = fatal crash severity; KA = fatal and suspected serious injury crash severity; X = available.

19
Case Studies

► Chosen from sample of 85 Complete Streets projects:

 Feature multiple treatments.

 Feature constructed projects with 3 or more years of data before and after.

 Focus on improving pedestrian/bicyclist safety.

► Five case studies (Porter et al. forthcoming):

 First Hill Streetcar Project, Seattle, WA.

 Greenough Boulevard Greenway Expansion, Cambridge, MA.

 Bench Boulevard Project, Billings, MT.

 Fletcher Avenue Complete Streets Project, Hillsborough County, FL.

 Highways 28, 29, 104 Project, Glenwood, MN.

20
Case Study Data Collection (1/2)

► Geolocated crash data collected (5 yr before and after, 

where possible).

► Volume data collected (gaps in volume data filled by 

interpolation, assumption).

► Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2010) segmentation 

process performed (used to assign data to relevant 

segments and intersections).

► Safety treatments implemented.

► Applicable CMFs used.

► Combined CMFs for treatment combinations applied.

© 2022 Google ® Earth TM. Modified by authors to highlight the project 

corridor, intersections, and segments (Porter et al. forthcoming). 

21
Case Study Data Collection (2/2)

2011

© 2011 Google ® Maps (Google Maps 2011).

2014

© 2022 Google ® Maps (Google Maps 2022b).

Treatments applied to the segment in this 

project:

► Add shared lane marking (sharrow).

► Remove on-street parking.

► Add median.

► Add midblock crossing.

► Add pedestrian signal.

► Add streetcar.

► Add streetcar stop.

22
Analysis Methods

Analysis Type (Method) Description

Predictive analysis (P1) Assumes no volume change from current period to future period.

Predictive analysis (P2) Projects future period volume by extrapolating year-to-year trend from 

current period.

Safety effectiveness evaluation (E1) Assumes no volume change from before period to after period.

Safety effectiveness evaluation (E2) Projects after-period volume by extrapolating year-to-year trend from before 

period.

Safety effectiveness evaluation (E3) Uses observed after period volume.

P1 = predictive analysis method 1; P2 = predictive analysis method 2; E1 = safety effectiveness evaluation method 1; E2 = safety effectiveness evaluation 2; E3 = safety effectiveness evaluation 3.

► Predictive analysis compared what was predicted to what occurred.

► Predictive analysis tried different approaches to create CMF for treatment 

combinations (the next slide displays only dominant effect, multiplicative 

(for comparison purposes), and dominant common residual).

23
Summary of Analysis Results (1/2)

Analysis: CMF Combo Method (Result Type) First Hill Streetcar Greenough Blvd Bench Blvd Fletcher Ave Hwy 28, 29, 104

E1: Not applicable (Reduction) 122 16 2 210 18

E1: Not applicable (%) 15 55 2 11 38

E2: Not applicable (Reduction) 88.2 16.0 -1.5 98.2 19.2

E2: Not applicable (%) 11 55 -2 5 39

E3: Not applicable (Reduction) 31.7 11.1 27.2 160.6 13.2

E3: Not applicable (%) 4 38 30 8 31

P1: Dominant Effect (Reduction) 288.0 10.2 20.8 394.2 18.7

P1: Dominant Effect (%) 35 35 23 20 39

P1: Multiplicative (Reduction) 314.0 8.7 28.2 392.0 21.7

P1: Multiplicative (%) 38 30 31 20 45

P1: Dominant Common Residuals (Reduction) 206.5 6.1 21.6 518.6 13.9

P1: Dominant Common Residuals (%) 25 21 24 26 29

P2: Dominant Effect (Reduction) 317.5 10.2 24.1 484.1 18.0

P2: Dominant Effect (%) 39 35 27 24 38

P2: Multiplicative (Reduction) 344.1 8.7 31.3 482.5 21.2

P2: Multiplicative (%) 42 30 35 24 44

P2: Dominant Common Residuals (Reduction) 238.2 6.1 24.8 601.5 13.1

P2: Dominant Common Residuals (%) 29 21 28 30 27

24
Summary of Analysis Results (2/2) 

Analysis: CMF Combo Method (Result Type) First Hill Streetcar Greenough Blvd Bench Blvd Fletcher Ave Hwy 28, 29, 104

E1: Not applicable (Reduction) 122 16 2 210 18

E1: Not applicable (%) 15 55 2 11 38

E2: Not applicable (Reduction) 88.2 16.0 -1.5 98.2 19.2

E2: Not applicable (%) 11 55 -2 5 39

E3: Not applicable (Reduction) 31.7 11.1 27.2 160.6 13.2

E3: Not applicable (%) 4 38 30 8 31

P1: Dominant Effect (Reduction) 288.0 10.2 20.8 394.2 18.7

P1: Dominant Effect (%) 35 35 23 20 39

P1: Multiplicative (Reduction) 314.0 8.7 28.2 392.0 21.7

P1: Multiplicative (%) 38 30 31 20 45

P1: Dominant Common Residuals (Reduction) 206.5 6.1 21.6 518.6 13.9

P1: Dominant Common Residuals (%) 25 21 24 26 29

P2: Dominant Effect (Reduction) 317.5 10.2 24.1 484.1 18.0

P2: Dominant Effect (%) 39 35 27 24 38

P2: Multiplicative (Reduction) 344.1 8.7 31.3 482.5 21.2

P2: Multiplicative (%) 42 30 35 24 44

P2: Dominant Common Residuals (Reduction) 238.2 6.1 24.8 601.5 13.1

P2: Dominant Common Residuals (%) 29 21 28 30 27

25
Complete Streets Safety Analysis Primer*

► Summarizes how to estimate combined safety effect of 

multiple treatments for Complete Streets projects:

 Predictive analysis (for project planning stage).

 Safety effectiveness evaluation (for quantifying Complete Streets 

benefit after construction).

► Describes data needs and preparation, common 

challenges/limitations, and future research needs.

► Outlines details for both practitioners and researchers.

* (Porter et al. forthcoming)

26
Predictive Analysis

1. Estimate safety performance of 

future no-build condition (expected, 

predicted, or observed crashes).

2. Determine CMF for Complete 

Streets project:

 Identify CMF for each treatment.

 Select method for combining CMFs.

3. Estimate safety performance of 

Complete Streets project.

SPFs = Safety performance functions. Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

27
Safety Effectiveness Evaluation

1. Estimate safety performance in the 

after period WITHOUT the 

Complete Streets project 

(expected crashes or observed 

crashes with/without volume 

adjustment).

2. Compare safety performance in 

the after period WITH and 

WITHOUT the Complete Streets 

project. Source: FHWA (Porter et al. forthcoming).

28
Report Contains:

► Detailed content on treatment combinations and CMF availability.

► Complete Streets Safety Analysis Primer (Porter et al. 

forthcoming).

► Catalog of 80 Complete Streets treatments (descriptions, photos, 

summary of available CMFs).

► Catalog of 11 CMF combination methods.

► Case study descriptions (crash data, volume data, treatments, 

CMFs applied, and analysis results).

29
Common Challenges and Limitations (1/2) 

► Lack of SPFs (if not available, cannot use predicted or 

expected crashes).

► Lack of traffic volume data:

 Most often an issue for cross-streets.

 In many cases, volume assumptions are made or data are excluded 

from analysis.

► Lack of pedestrian/bicycle volume data (volume data difficult to 

obtain).

30
Common Challenges and Limitations (2/2) 

► Attribution of crash or volume changes to Complete Streets projects 

(difficult to determine volume change that would have occurred without 

the Complete Streets project).

► Understanding of volume and safety changes to the surrounding network:

 Complete Streets projects may cause users to shift routes and/or modes.

 Analysts may need to expand study area to include surrounding network.

► Lack of CMFs for Complete Streets treatments:

 If CMFs are not available, analysts may not be able to estimate potential benefits of 

treatments.

 If CMFs are not available, may need option to develop CMF (using safety 

effectiveness evaluation).

31
Conclusions and Recommendations 

Explore other potential safety performance metrics:

► Safe System-based metrics:

 Complete Streets treatment affects on exposure, vehicle speed, user complexity, etc.

 For example, FHWA Safe System for Intersections method.

► Comprehensive health and safety metrics:

 Disability-adjusted life years averted.

(Due to reduced air pollution, increased physical activity, etc.)

 Quality-adjusted life years gained.

(Due to increased physical activity, improved mental health, increased accessibility, etc.)

32
Key Resources

► AASHTO Highway Safety Manual (AASHTO 2010).

► CMF Clearinghouse (FHWA 2023a).

► NCHRP Report 991: Guidelines for the Development and 

Application of Crash Modification Factors (Carter et al. 2022). 

► FHWA Road Safety Data Program (RSDP) (FHWA n.d.b).

Including RSDP videos for selecting and applying methods to analyze 

multiple CMFs (FHWA 2023b).

33
References

► AASHTO. 2010. Highway Safety Manual. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Transportation Professionals. http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► Atlanta Regional Commission. 2022. 2022 Atlanta Regional Commission Regional Safety Strategy. Atlanta, GA: Atlanta Regional Commission. https://cdn.atlantaregional.org/wp-content/uploads/regionalsafety-strategy-finalreport-2.pdf, last accessed August 22, 2023.

► Carter, D., R. Srinivasan, F. Gross, S. Himes, et al. 2022. Guidelines for the Development and Application of Crash Modification Factors. NCHRP Research Report 991. Washington, DC: National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. https://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/182603.aspx, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► FHWA. 2018. “Department of Justice/Department of Transportation Joint Technical Assistance on the Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act Requirements to Provide Curb Ramps when Streets, 

Roads, or Highways are Altered through Resurfacing” (web page). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/civilrights/programs/doj_fhwa_ta.cfm, last accessed August 22, 2023.

► FHWA. 2020. The Safe System Approach. Report No. FHWA-SA-20-015. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-

06/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► FHWA. 2022a. Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-03/Complete%20Streets%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf, last accessed August 22, 2023.

► FHWA. 2022b. “Data Driven Safety Analysis (DDSA)” (web page). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis-tools/rsdp/data-driven-safety-analysis-ddsa, last accessed September 5, 2023.

► FHWA. 2022c. Complete Streets Transformations: Six Scenarios to Transform Arterials using a Complete Streets Implementation Strategy. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration. 

https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-02/2022_CS_Transformations_Doc_508.pdf, last accessed August 22, 2023.

► FHWA. 2023a. “Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse” (web page). https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► FHWA. 2023b. “RSDP Training” (web page). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis-tools/rsdp/rsdp-training, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► FHWA. n.d.a. “Complete Streets in FHWA” (web page). https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets, last accessed August 24, 2023.

► FHWA. n.d.b. “Roadway Safety Data Program.” (web page). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/data-analysis-tools/rsdp last accessed August 24, 2023.

► Google Maps. 2011. “1222 S Jackson Street, Seattle, Washington” (web page). https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5991715,-122.3162418,3a,75y,72.27h,81.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s3Z82be1-

csQnzvCf-NOeGQ!2e0!5s20110801T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu, last accessed August 24, 2023.

► Google Maps. 2013. “1247 Co Rd 582A, Tampa, Florida” (web page), last accessed August 24, 2023. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0691675,82.446511,3a,75y,69.96h,93.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVh51BARK0so0OnzIc4GyNw!2e0!5s20130501T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu, last accessed 

August 24, 2023.

► Google Maps. 2022a. “1247 Co Rd 582A, Tampa, Florida” (web page), last accessed August 24, 2023. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0691683,82.4465256,3a,75y,69.96h,93.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKHWhlKEW9UdTz_0WfMLSWw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu, last accessed August 24, 2023.

► Google Maps. 2022b. “1222 S Jackson Street, Seattle, Washington” (web page). https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5991664,-

122.3162641,3a,75y,72.27h,81.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAeKRnzq80KJK7Eg8aL4iBA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixelspa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAeKRnzq80KJK7Eg8aL4iBA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D166.92847%26pitch%3D0%26thumbf

ov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu , last accessed August 24, 2023.

► U.S. Congress. 2021. “H.Rept. 116-452 Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2021.” https://www.congress.gov/congressionalreport/116th-congress/house-report/452, last accessed August 24, 2023. 

► NHTSA. 2023. “Fatality and Injury Reporting System Tool (FIRST)” (web page). https://cdan.dot.gov/query, last accessed August 24, 2023.

► Porter, R.J., M. Dunn, K. Kersavage, et al. Forthcoming. Complete Streets – Safety Analysis. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration.

34
Questions?

35
© 2021 Peeterv / iStock.

Contact

In-Kyu Lim, Ph.D., P.E.

in-kyu.lim@dot.gov

36