IMPROVING ACCESS TO TRANSIT USING 

ROAD SAFETY AUDITS: FOUR CASE STUDIES 

FHWA-SA-16-120
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. 
i 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-120 

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies 

5. Report Date

October 2016 

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Elissa Goughnour, Javier Revilla, and Corey Pitts 

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc. 

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700 

Vienna, VA 22182-2626 

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report 

October 2016 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. 1 Supplementary Notes

The Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety sponsored the study of the Transit Road Safety Audits reported in 

this document. The Task Manager for this report was Rebecca Crowe (FHWA Office of Safety). Cynthia Chagnon-MacKenzie provided graphic design and Meg Bryson and Kevin Keeley provided research and content review. Cover photos: 

Elissa Goughnour and Dan Nabors. 

16. Abstract

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future roadway or off-road facility and are conducted by an independent, experienced, multidisciplinary team. This case study document provides a 

review of the RSA process and four case study examples of RSAs that had a demonstrated interest in improving transit 

safety. The case studies include photographs, a project background, and key RSA findings and suggestions. These case 

studies will help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies better understand conditions that affect transit access and 

how to effectively address safety in the RSA process. 

17. Key Words

Road safety audit, transit, roadway design, safety 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161. 

19. Security Classif.

(of this report)

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif.

(of this page)

Unclassified 

21.

56 

No. of Pages 22. Price

Technical Documentation Page
 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

Development of this report required input from transportation agencies at the Federal, State, 

and local levels. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the authors greatly appreciate 

the cooperation of the North Carolina Department of Transportation; the City of Asheville, North 

Carolina; Orange County, Florida; the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority; the Florida 

Department of Transportation; MetroPlan Orlando; the City of Springfield, Oregon; Sun Tran; and 

the City of Tucson, Arizona. 

ii 
iii 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Background............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1
 

Eight Steps of an RSA..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
 

RSAs: Benefits and Costs........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
	

Principles of Transit Safety ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
 

Transit Safety Considerations.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
	

Transit Users in the RSA Process................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
	

RSA Project Selection.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
	

How Transit Safety was Incorporated into the RSA Process ..................................................................................................................................... 10
 

Positive Measures ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
 

Challenges............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
 

Opportunities...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
	

Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 20
 

APPENDIX A: TRANSIT ACCESS ROAD SAFETY AUDIT CASE STUDIES .......................................................................................................................A-1
 
 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Typical eight-step RSA process. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Figure 2. Example of bus stop and bus corridor catchment area...................................................................................................................................... 7
	

Figure 3: ADA standards for bus stop boarding & alighting area and shelters.................................................................................................8
 

Figure 4: Example of ramp at an unmarked crosswalk on Main Street in the City of Springfield, Oregon. .............. 13
 

Figure 5: West Colonial Drive, east of the Pine Hills Road intersection, with a buffer between the bicycle lane 

and the curb....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
	

Figure 6: On left: Blackout Yield to Pedestrian sign. On right: pedestrian hybrid beacon............................................................ 17
	

Figure 7: Focus area in the Orlando, FL area (West Colonial Drive and North Pine Hills Road) showing possible 

intersection improvements............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
	

Figure 8: Patton Avenue road diet concept diagram. ................................................................................................................................................................... 18
 

Figure 9: Alternative intersection design option. On top: mini-roundabout intersection conceptual diagram 

from Florida Mall location in Orlando, Florida. On bottom: mini-roundabout diagram. ................................... 19
	

Figure A-1. Aerial image of the RSA study area for the Ronstadt Transit Center and surrounding area....................A-2
 
 

Figure A-2. State Route 7 study area. ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... A-11
 

Figure A-3. Transit access RSA focus areas in the greater Orlando metropolitan area................................................................ A-17
	

Figure A-4. Transit access RSA study areas for Asheville, North Carolina..................................................................................................... A-25
	

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Case Study RSAs. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10
 

iv 
1 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Purpose 

The purpose of this report is to help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies understand conditions 

that affect the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users; address road safety issues; and 

identify opportunities for improvement through the Road Safety Audit (RSA) process. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored four Transit Access RSAs through the 

Mayor’s Challenge, an initiative from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Secretary of 

Transportation, to demonstrate the benefits of using the RSA process to reduce pedestrian and 

cyclist fatalities, injuries, and crashes in urban areas.1 This report describes the background of how 

to conduct RSAs, the benefits and costs of performing RSAs, and how to incorporate transit safety 

into the RSA process. A synthesis of the findings from each Transit Access RSA is provided, and 

identifies lessons learned about challenges and opportunities facing communities as they seek to 

improve the safety of transit riders during all phases of their trip. 

The locations selected for the Transit Access RSAs were urban and suburban areas and focused on safety concerns 

facing transit users accessing transit facilities (Photo Credit: Dan Nabors). 

Background

An RSA is an effective tool for proactively improving roadway safety. FHWA defines an RSA as 

a “formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or future road or intersection by an 

independent, multidisciplinary team.” The primary focus of an RSA is safety, while working within 

the context of other aspects such as mobility, access, surrounding land use, and aesthetics. An RSA is 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation. Mayor’s Challenge for Safety People, Safer Streets. Available: 

https://www.transportation.gov/mayors-challenge. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

conducted by a team that is independent of the design and operation of the facility, and can address 

safety through a thorough review of roadway, traffic, transit, environmental, and human factors 

conditions. By using an unbiased and multidisciplinary team to perform a comprehensive review and 

an evaluation of geometric, operational, and human factors-related safety issues for a given study 

area, RSAs make sure that safety is adequately considered. The RSA team is typically composed of at 

least three members having expertise in road safety, traffic operations, and roadway design. Other 

potential team members may have a background in enforcement, emergency medical services, 

maintenance, human factors analysis, transportation planning, pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety, or 

any other discipline deemed relevant to the context of the evaluation. 

RSAs can be performed at any stage in a project’s life: 

• A Pre-Construction RSA (planning and design stages) examines a road prior to construction. 

This may occur at the project planning, feasibility, or project development stage or could occur 

during the design stage, beginning with preliminary design stage and ending with final design 

stage. An RSA at this stage identifies potential safety issues before crashes occur. The earlier 

an agency conducts a Pre-Construction RSA, the greater potential it has to effectively mitigate 

possible safety concerns. For example, a planning stage RSA can examine a system of roads before 

a specific project has been identified for project development, design, and construction. The RSA 

team assesses the transportation system at the earliest point to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and 

program projects and activities that would considerably enhance traveler safety, in the context of 

and in collaboration with other multimodal transportation investments. 

• Construction RSAs (work zone, changes in design during construction, and preopening) examine 

temporary traffic management plans associated with construction or other roadwork and changes 

in design during construction. Construction RSAs can also be conducted after construction is 

completed, but before the roadway is opened to traffic. 

• A Post-Construction or Operational RSA (existing road) examines a currently operating road and is 

usually conducted to address a demonstrated crash problem. 

2 
3 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

	 

Figure 1: Typical Eight-step RSA Process (Source: FHWA).

Eight Steps of an RSA 

The eight steps of an RSA, shown in Figure 1, follow the procedures outlined in the FHWA Road 

Safety Audit Guidelines document.2 

The RSA Projects in this case study project were pre-selected (Step 1) and the RSA Teams (Step 2) 

were interdisciplinary, typically including engineering, planning, enforcement staff from various 

levels of government to include Federal, State, municipal, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). 

All meetings and site visits for the RSAs in the case studies project were conducted over two- or 

three-day periods. The RSAs typically began with a start-up meeting (Step 3) attended by the Project 

Owner and/or Design Team (hereafter referred to as the Owner) and the RSA team: 

•	 The Owner described concerns regarding the roads and intersections to be assessed, why the 

sites had been chosen for an RSA, and any constraints or limitations. Typically, the reasons for 

the RSA site selection centered on high-profile crashes or public safety concerns. 

2 Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. FHWA-SA-06-06. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/guidelines/documents/FHWA_SA_06_06.pdf. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

	 

	 

• The multidisciplinary RSA team then described the RSA process. This included an overview of 

the RSA process with examples of typical safety issues and potential measures to address them. 

•	 This step may include discussion of additional issues, such as planned roadway improvements. 

Following the start-up meeting and a preliminary review of the design or site documentation, the 

RSA team conducted a field review (Step 4). The purpose of the field review was to observe geometric and operating conditions. The RSA team observed site characteristics such as road geometry, 

sight distances, clear zones, drainage, signing, lighting, and barriers; traffic characteristics such 

as typical speeds and mix of road users and vehicles; surrounding land uses including traffic and 

pedestrian generators; and link points to the adjacent transportation network. The RSA team also 

considered human factors issues, including road and intersection “readability,” sign location and 

sequencing, and older-driver limitations. The RSA team conducted field reviews under a variety of 

environmental conditions, such as daytime and nighttime, and operational conditions, such as peak 

and off-peak times. 

The team conducted the RSA analysis (Step 5) in a setting in which all team members reviewed 

available background information, such as traffic volumes and collision data, in light of the observations made in the field. Based on this review, the RSA team identified and prioritized safety issues, 

including features that could contribute to a higher frequency and/or severity of crashes. For each 

safety issue, the RSA team generated a list of possible measures to mitigate the crash potential and/ 

or severity of a potential crash. 

At the end of the analysis session, the Owner and the RSA team reconvened for a preliminary 

findings meeting (Step 6). In presenting the preliminary findings verbally in a meeting, the RSA team 

gave the Owner an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, and 

provided a useful forum for the Owner to suggest additional or alternative mitigation measures in 

conjunction with the RSA team. The discussion provided practical information that was subsequently 

used to write the RSA report. 

In the weeks following the on-site portion of the RSA, the RSA team wrote and issued the RSA report 

(also part of Step 6) to the Owner. The RSA documented the findings of the RSA and consisted of a 

prioritized listing and description of the safety issues identified—illustrated using photographs taken 

during the site visit—and suggestions for improvements. 

The Owner was encouraged to write a brief response letter (Step 7) containing a point-by-point 

response to each of the safety issues identified in the RSA report. In the eight-step RSA process, the 

response letter identifies the action(s) to be taken, or explains why no action would be taken. The 

formal response letter is an important “closure” document for the RSA. As a final step, the Owner 

was encouraged to use the RSA findings to identify and implement safety improvements when 

policy, resources, and funding permit (Step 8). 

4 
5 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

RSAs: Benefits and Costs 

RSA Benefits 

The primary benefits of RSAs are the reduction of crashes and associated crash costs as road safety 

is improved. The US Department of Transportation estimates the costs of automotive crashes as:3 

• $9,400,000 for a traffic fatality (category K). 

• $5,574,200 for a critical injury (category A1). 

• $2,500,400 for a severe injury (category A2). 

• $987,000 for a serious injury (category B1). 

• $441,800 for a moderate injury (category B2). 

• $28,200 for a minor injury (category C). 

• $18,374 for property damage only (PDO).4 

Other benefits of RSAs include reduced life-cycle project costs due to crash reduction, and the development of good safety engineering and design practices, including consideration of the surrounding 

land use and development in combination with potential multimodal safety issues and integrating 

human factors issues in the design, operations, and maintenance of roads. Additional benefits may 

include enhanced traveler experience and access management, reduced travel delay and travel time, 

and improved travel reliability. 

In 2012, FHWA sponsored a study of nine RSA programs and five RSA projects illustrating the benefits of RSAs. The project documented key strategies underpinning the success of the nine RSA programs, as well as the quantitative safety benefits of specific improvements implemented through the 

five specific RSA projects. The FHWA report Road Safety Audits: An Evaluation of RSA Programs and 

Projects (FHWA-SA-12-037) provides the results of this study. In order to build support for conducting RSAs and implementing RSA programs, practitioners are encouraged to refer to this FHWA report 

along with other local and regional studies that document the successes in implementing RSAs. 

RSA Costs 

Three main factors contribute to the cost of an RSA: 

• RSA team costs. 

• Design team and Owner costs. 

• Costs of design changes or enhancements. 

3 U.S. Department of Transportation, Memorandum to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators from Polly Trottenberg, Under 

Secretary for Policy, February 28, 2013. 

4 Derived from comparison of 2001 and 2015 fatality costs using the Federal Highway Administration. Crash Cost Estimates 

by Maximum Police-Reported Injury Severity Within Selected Crash Geometries (FHWA-HRT-05-051). Available: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05051/05051.pdf 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

The RSA team costs reflect the size of the team and the time required for the RSA, which in turn 

depend on the complexity of the RSA project. RSA teams are typically composed of three to four 

persons, although they can be larger when multiple owners are involved. 

Opening and closing meetings, site visits, and RSA analysis sessions are typically conducted in a 

two- or three-day period for each RSA. Prior to and following the on-site portion of the RSA, time is 

required for analysis (such as analysis of collision records, and research on applicable design standards or mitigation measures) along with writing the RSA report. 

The design team and owner costs reflect the time required for staff to attend the start-up and preliminary findings meetings, and to subsequently read the RSA report and respond to its findings. In 

addition, staff time is required to compile project or site materials for the RSA team. 

The final cost component entails those costs resulting from design changes or enhancements, which 

reflect the number and complexity of the issues identified during the RSA. 

Principles of Transit Safety

The primary goal of transit providers is to enhance citizens’ mobility, accessibility, and economic 

well-being through the development and management of public transport services that are comprehensive, affordable, efficient, reliable, safe, and environmentally sound.5

 The physical safety of 

transit passengers while using and accessing transit facilities is crucial to the success of the transit 

system. Every transit passenger must travel some distance, whether it is driving and then walking 

from a park and ride lot, or walking and bicycling a longer distance to the transit stop. A general 

rule-of-thumb regarding the distances people are willing to travel to a transit stop is as follows:6,7 

• People are willing to walk up to 1⁄4 mile to access Local Bus transit. 

• People are willing to walk up to 1⁄2 mile to access BRT or Rail transit. 

• People are willing to bike between 1-3 miles to access Rail transit. 

Figure 2 illustrates an example of a bus stop and bus corridor catchment area. Within these catchment areas, it is important to identify routes that people use to walk, bike, or drive to transit facilities and identify and address the safety risks to transit users. 

5 Federal Transit Administration. Region 5 Mission Statement. Available: 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/regional-offices/region-5/mission-statement. 

6 U.S. Government Publishing Office. Federal Transit Administration Final Policy Statement on the Eligibility of Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Improvements Under Federal Transit Law (Docket No: FTA-2009-0052). Federal Register Volume 76, No. 161. Available: 

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-19/pdf/2011-21273.pdf. 

7 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/transit_guide.pdf. 

6 
7 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


	

	 

	 

	 

Figure 2. Example of bus stop and bus corridor catchment area (Map data: ©Google).
 

Transit Safety Considerations
	

Understanding and properly identifying safety issues at transit facilities that affect transit riders is 

essential to finding an appropriate solution. In order for transit to be viable for users, the following 

needs should be considered:8 

•	 Access to and from the transit stop – From the transit stop, transit users need to have access 

to destinations such as places of business, schools, and healthcare facilities. This access should 

be provided through unobstructed accessible routes and crossing measures. For pedestrians 

and cyclists, this access can be provided through sidewalks, bike lanes, shared use paths, and in 

some instances a wide shoulder. 

•	 Continuous facilities – bicycle and pedestrian facilities to transit facilities should be continuous 

and avoid abrupt changes and gaps in facilities. 

•	 Crossing measures – Crossing measures such as crosswalks, signs, and signals that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street should be provided to help users access transit 

facilities. 

8 Federal Highway Administration. A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking and Biking. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/residents_guide2014_final.pdf. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

At the transit facility, there are other measures that should be considered:9 

•	 Accessible transit stops – transit stops should include ramps, landing pads, and connections to 

accessible routes. Figure 3 illustrates some of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards for bus stops. 

•	 Lighting – transit stop lighting provides riders with a sense of personal safety when using transit 

during dark conditions. It also helps to alert drivers of transit facilities and transit riders, and 

helps transit operators see waiting riders. 

•	 Transit stop amenities – transit stop amenities are important components to help attract transit riders. It is important to note what amenities are in use, how they are designed, and what 

could be improved upon. Amenities can include features such as seating, shelters, trash receptacles, and bicycle racks. 

•	 Location of transit stops – the location of transit stops can have a significant impact on traffic 

operation and safety for transit riders, transit operators, and other drivers. Transit stops placed 

prior to a signal can use the red phase for boarding and alighting. However, some transit agencies have noted that with riders exiting the rear of the transit vehicle, this stop placement can 

encourage mid-block crossings. Placing the transit stop after the signal can cause other vehicles 

to unexpectedly and abruptly stop after driving through the signal and can impede traffic 

operations, but can encourage pedestrians exiting the transit vehicle at the rear to cross at the 

intersection. Other transit stop considerations include whether to use pull-outs, median stops, 

or dedicated transit lanes for exiting passengers. Each option should be reviewed to determine 

the impact on traffic flow, safety, and rider behavior. 

Figure 3. ADA Standards for bus stop boarding & alighting area and shelters (Source: US Access Board).

9 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/transit_guide.pdf. 

8 
9 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

How to Incorporate Transit into the RSA Process 

Incorporating a transit access focus to the RSA process is unique due to the complexity of facility 

ownership. In many instances, transit agencies are responsible for providing local service to the community and operate on roadways maintained by the locality or state department of transportation. 

Furthermore, lighting and intersection traffic signals may be maintained by the locality. The transit 

agency may work with the locality to solicit input, but the transit agency is ultimately responsible 

for planning routes, operating service, and selecting/maintaining transit stop locations. The transit 

agency must work with the owner of the roadway (often a State or local agency or private entity) 

to install the transit stops and any associated amenities. It is imperative that these agencies work 

together during the RSA process to address safety concerns related to transit use and access. 

When considering conducting a transit access focused RSA, the following areas should receive particular attention. 

•	 Participants: Every RSA should seek to involve participants from a variety of backgrounds and 

specialties. The RSA team should include the agencies that own and maintain the roadway, traffic specialists, safety specialists, and first responders. Due to the complexity of the relationship 

between transit, State, and local agencies, representatives from each should be included in the 

RSA. Additionally, transit operators can provide unique perspectives of the transit facilities and 

behaviors of roadway drivers and transit riders. 

•	 Focus: Transit Access RSAs are not solely limited to the transit stops; they should also consider 

the routes that riders take to and from the transit facilities. The FHWA Pedestrian Road Safety 

Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists and Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists can 

help to provide unique insights on safety concerns facing pedestrians and cyclists.10,11 

•	 Field Review: During the RSA, teams are encouraged to experience the facilities in a variety of 

conditions by conducting field reviews during both dark and light conditions and using a variety 

of modes such as driving, walking, and biking through the study area. In addition, during a Transit Access RSA, teams should also try to experience the study area by riding the transit vehicle 

to view first hand driver behavior in response to transit vehicles and challenges facing transit 

riders. In some instances, the transit agency may be able to provide a vehicle for the RSA team. 

In other instances, the RSA team may have to ride through the facility on a vehicle operating on 

its standard route. 

Transit Users in the RSA Process 

RSA Project Selection 

This case study effort included four Transit Access RSAs in different regions of the country with 

crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists, as shown in Table 1. Each RSA followed the standard 

10 Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. FHWA-SA-07-007. Available: 

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf. 

11 Federal Highway Administration. Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. FHWA-SA-12-018. Available: 

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Table 1: Case Study RSAs.
 

Host Agency

City of Asheville, 

North Carolina 

Location

Four locations on Patton 

Avenue: three urban 

intersections and three 

suburban intersections. 

Facility Type and Project Stage

Existing multi-lane road and 

multi-lane divided highway. 

Area of Study 

Patton Avenue: ~2.0 miles 

Transit Stops: 12 

Orange County, 

Florida 

Three locations at varying 

intersections throughout 

Orlando, Florida: West Colonial 

Drive at North Pine Hills 

Road, Econlockhatchee Trail 

at Valencia College Lane, and 

two intersections in the Florida 

Mall area. 

Existing urban, multilane highway and urban 

intersections with heavy 

transit use. 

Urban intersections with 

approximately 16 transit 

stops and two super 

stops. 

City of Springfield, 

Oregon 

Four locations on Main Street 

Corridor: four urban/suburban 

intersections. 

Existing and planning level 

on urban/suburban two-lane 

road 

Approximately 5 miles 

Transit Stops: 12 

City of Tucson, 

Arizona 

Ronstadt Transit Center and 

surrounding area. 

Urban transit center with 

multi-modal transit. 

Transit center and 

the surrounding area, 

approximately 17.5 acres. 

eight-step RSA process documented by FHWA. Each of the RSA teams selected study area sites based 

on combinations of the following criteria: 

• High crash frequency involving transit users. 

• Existing multimodal concerns. 

• Locations with high transit ridership. 

• Planning for alternative transit modes. 

A more detailed report of these four RSAs is included in Appendix A. 

How Transit Safety was Incorporated into the RSA Process 

RSAs were conducted on existing facilities based on a variety of factors, including crash frequency, 

transit ridership, bicycle and pedestrian use, and future transit changes (Step 1 in the RSA process). 

RSA teams consisted of the typical participants such as persons with expertise in road safety, traffic 

operations, road design, and law enforcement (Step 2). Other RSA team members also had expertise 

critical to understanding conditions affecting transit users, such as members from departments 

of planning and transportation, transit agencies, and other groups and organizations. The transit 

operators provided unique insights into transit rider safety and transit operation. 

During the start-up meeting (Step 3) and the RSA analysis workshop (Step 5), the RSA team reviewed 

and discussed crash data, including contributing factors, and conditions during the time of the 

crash. The start-up meeting also included a discussion of the transit modes and routes within the 

study area. The RSA team reviewed these conditions in the field (Step 4). Furthermore, during each 

10 
11 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

RSA, several team members who were very familiar with the locations relayed their knowledge and 

experience to the RSA team. 

Later, during the RSA analysis workshop (Step 5), the team discussed these conditions in more detail. 

The objective of this review was to discuss the analysis results and compare them with conditions 

observed in the field. Based on this analysis, the RSA team considered conditions critical to the 

safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users and suggested countermeasures that may reduce 

the risk to all users. 

The RSAs helped bring attention to safety issues affecting transit users by highlighting the effects 

of design and maintenance practices and by bringing together a multidisciplinary and multimodal 

group of safety professionals to clarify issues that may not have been adequately understood previously. Furthermore, through the RSAs conducted as part of this study, the RSA teams discussed 

positive measures, challenges, and opportunities for advancement of pedestrian and transit safety. 

The following section describes these in further detail. 

Positive Measures 

The RSAs included in this report demonstrated many of the positive measures implemented to 

address safety near transit facilities. Some of these positive measures include a general commitment 

to safety, encouragement of multimodal transportation choices through policies and engineering, 

and strong collaboration between agencies. 

Commitment to safety. The RSAs demonstrated that agencies are seeking specific measures to 

address the safety of transit users. This interest has been driven in part by a high crash frequency in 

the vicinity of transit stops, particularly among bicyclists and pedestrians who may be traveling to or 

from a transit facility. The City of Springfield, Oregon, in conjunction with Lane Transit District (LTD), 

proactively addressed pedestrian safety by installing a series of rectangular rapid flashing beacons 

(RRFBs) and pedestrian refuge islands along Main Street near transit stops. 

Encouragement of multimodal transportation choices. Local agencies in the study areas demonstrated a desire to create a multimodal culture. For example, the City of Tucson has cultivated a strong 

multimodal culture; people were found to be walking, cycling, and taking mass transit (bus and 

streetcar) in addition to driving. Numerous organizations provided support in creating a multimodal 

environment, such as the Downtown Tucson Partnership, which provided improved landscaping, 

maintenance, marketing, and economic development opportunities to the downtown area. Similarly, 

the City of Springfield has encouraged and embraced a multimodal environment through their 

policies and infrastructure including shared use paths, sidewalks, bike lanes, and attractive and 

convenient transit services. 

Collaboration with transit agencies and other organizations. Transit agencies and other organizations in the study areas contribute heavily to the culture of creating safer roadways for multimodal 

users. For example, the Florida Department of Transportation developed a Complete Streets policy 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

	 

to address safety and serve the transportation needs of transit users, including pedestrians, cyclists, 

and transit riders. In Asheville, the City of Asheville and NCDOT worked together to relocate transit 

stops to the far end of an intersection to encourage rear alighting pedestrians to use crosswalks. 

In Tucson, collaboration among transit agencies has led to the implementation of safety measures 

including upgraded traffic signals that include transit signal priority, accessible pedestrian routes to 

transit facilities, security provided by law enforcement and privately staff retained by the Downtown 

Tucson Partnership, promotion of a multimodal culture, and improved street lighting, among others. 

Challenges 

The RSAs included in this report demonstrated several challenges that agencies face when addressing the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Some of these challenges include the 

difficulty in relating crash data to transit vehicles and facilities, understanding the conditions for 

non-motorized users accessing transit facilities, and driver and pedestrian behavior. 

Understanding the problem. It can be difficult for transit agencies to understand the risks facing 

transit users as they travel to and from the transit facility. For each of the RSAs conducted, the host 

agency provided pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit-related crash data and in many cases included 

access to police reports with more detailed crash narratives. However, for pedestrian and bicycle 

crashes, it was unclear if any involved transit riders traveling to or from a transit facility. Additionally, 

only a small portion of pedestrian and bicycle crashes are typically reported.12 

Detailed crash data can help identify crash trends, such as age and location, and can help assess 

overall trends and contributing factors to crashes. This data may help target not only higher-risk 

groups, but also higher-risk locations or transit user behavioral trends. 

Understanding conditions affecting transit users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users face unique 

challenges when utilizing facilities designed primarily for personal motor vehicles. The following 

section identifies some of the most common issues facing transit users: 

•	 ADA compliance. The RSA teams noted many instances where marked and unmarked crossings 

were not ADA compliant and were lacking ramps and/or detectible warning strips and 

signalized intersections lacked accessible pedestrian signals. It is important to ensure ADA 

compliance so that all individuals are able to access transit facilities. For example, the RSA 

performed in the City of Springfield, Oregon, noted that many marked and unmarked crossings 

did not meet ADA standards, even though there is a large population of older or disabled 

individuals to the east of the downtown area. Figure 4 shows an unmarked crosswalk that is not 

ADA compliant. 

12 Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Statistics. Available: 

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/factsheet_crash.cfm. 

12 
13 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

	 

Regarding the construction of transportation facilities by public entities, any new facility or 

station to be used in providing public transportation services must be “readily accessible to and 

usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.” (49 CFR Part 

37.41). If an existing structure is altered, the altered portions must be made “readily accessible 

to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs” to the 

“maximum extent feasible”. The definition of “maximum extent feasible” means that the 

regulations must be followed unless “the nature of an existing facility makes it impossible to 

comply fully with applicable accessibility standards” and that any portion of the facility that can 

be made accessible, shall be. If it is not possible to make a portion of the facility accessible to 

individuals with certain disabilities, it should still be made accessible to individuals with other 

types of disabilities (49 CFR Part 37.43). 

Figure 4. Example of ramp at an unmarked crosswalk on Main Street in the City of Springfield, Oregon

(Photo Credit: Elissa Goughnour).

•	 Pedestrian marked and unmarked crossings. Pedestrian crossings, whether marked or unmarked, create a conflict point between motorized and non-motorized users. The RSAs in this 

report noted many locations with inadequate pavement markings or signage to provide drivers 

with warning or indication of pedestrian crossings. For example, in the City of Asheville, North 

Carolina, the RSA team noted that none of the intersections analyzed by the RSA team, outside 

the downtown area, have crosswalks or pedestrian signals. At signalized intersections without 

pedestrian signals, it can be difficult for pedestrians and cyclists to know when to cross. In 

particular, with split signal phasing pedestrians can end up stuck in the middle of the roadway 

when the signal phase changes. Additionally, the yielding rate for turning vehicles to pedestrians was low. This issue may be exacerbated at unmarked crossings. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

 

In the eastern portion of Springfield, Oregon study area, where higher population of older 

residents was noted, evaluating pedestrian crossing measures is even more important. 

According to the FHWA report, Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at 

Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines, older pedestrians are more 

at risk than younger pedestrians on virtually all types of crosswalks.13 Some of the possible 

reasons that older pedestrians are at greater risk are that, in comparison to younger pedestrian, 

they are more likely to have:
	
	

» Slower walking speeds (and thus greater exposure time).
	
	

» Visual and/or hearing impairments.
	
	

»Difficulty in judging the distance and speed of oncoming traffic.
	
	

»Difficulty keeping track of vehicles coming from different directions, including turning vehicles.
	
	

» Reduced reaction speed or inability to avoid a collision under emergency conditions.
	
	

•	 Conflicts between motorists and pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users. Throughout the process 

of evaluating RSA sites, conflicts between turning vehicles and non-motorized users were observed by the RSA teams. Even while wearing highly visible safety vests, the RSA team noticed 

many drivers who did not yield to crossing RSA team members. In Orlando, Florida, the RSA 

team observed many instances in which drivers disregarded crossing pedestrians and cyclists 

during the green phase and while making right turns on red. 

•	 Pavement markings. The use of pavement markings on roadways to alert drivers of non-motorized users plays a significant role in creating cohesive multimodal environment. During the RSAs, 

the team members noted many instances of faded and/or incomplete pavement markings. In 

some instances, the markings were present but could have been used in a more effective format. 

For example, in Orlando, Florida, the RSA team noted that pavement markings are present and in 

good conditions in all the study areas. However, in one of the focus areas, a buffer was provided 

between the bike lane and the curb as shown in Figure 5, rather than a buffer between the bike 

lane and travel lanes where it would provide the greatest benefit for cyclists. In this area, drivers 

were also using the bike lane and buffer as a right- turn lane possibly due to the lack of bike lane 

pavement markings and the available width which allows the buffer and bike lane to function as 

a full travel lane. 

13 Federal Highway Administration. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: 

Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. FHWA–HRT–04–100. Available: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf. 

. 

14 
15 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

	 

Figure 5. West Colonial Drive, east of the Pine Hills Road intersection, 

with a buffer between the bicycle lane and the curb (Map data: ©Google).

• Pedestrian behavior. During all of the RSAs, the teams observed pedestrians crossing mid-block, 

and crossing against the pedestrian signal designation. According to the National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration, the majority (71 percent) of fatal pedestrian crashes occur outside 

of intersections.14 In the City of Springfield, Oregon, the RSA team witnessed many pedestrians 

crossing Main Street at unmarked crossings or mid-block crossings. While unmarked crossings 

are legal crossing locations, drivers may not expect pedestrians to cross Main Street outside of 

the marked crosswalk locations due to the high vehicle speeds and long crossing distance. In 

Orlando, Florida, the RSA team noted pedestrians crossing mid-block on wide multi-lane roadways. Mid-block crossings were also a source of pedestrian crashes—four of the study area 

crashes involved pedestrians crossing mid-block, and two of those resulted in fatalities. Some 

members of the RSA team anecdotally noted that in some locations pedestrians have expressed 

their opinion that it is safer to cross away from the crosswalk. It is important for communities 

to examine pedestrian behavior and pathways in order to create safer and more convenient 

facilities for them. Frequent mid-block crossings may indicate that driver needs have been prioritized over pedestrian needs. 

Opportunities 

In response to the issues identified during each of the RSAs, a variety of opportunities were identified. Some of these opportunities included improving ADA compliance, evaluating the need for pedestrian crossing measures, implementing corridor access management techniques, and increased 

separation of modes. 

14 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts: Pedestrians 2014 (DOT HS 812 270). Available: 

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812270. 

. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

ADA compliance. It is important to ensure ADA compliance so that all individuals can access transit 

facilities. Agencies should continue evaluating transit stops locations and pedestrian access to transit 

facilities, and ensure compliance with ADA access requirements for bus boarding and alighting 

areas. This is particularly important in areas with an aging population or populations with mobility challenges. 

Pedestrian crossing measures. Agencies should evaluate pedestrian routes to transit stops and 

identify appropriate locations for crosswalks and pedestrian signals. These measures are particularly 

important in locations with wide roadway crossings that are more difficult for pedestrians to cross. 

According to FHWA, “On many roadways, particularly multilane and high-speed crossing locations, 

more substantial improvements often are needed for safer pedestrian crossings, such as providing 

raised medians, installing traffic signals (with pedestrian signals) when warranted, implementing 

speed-reducing measures, and/or other practices.”15 For multilane (four or more lanes) roadways 

with a raised median and an AADT greater than 15,000 vehicles per day, the study concluded that 

marked crosswalks should be combined with other pedestrian facility enhancements, such as pedestrian signals. Installing marked crosswalks alone has not proven to be sufficient in reducing pedestrian crashes. 

Consider implementing measures to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. Some of the 

measures discussed include pedestrian hybrid beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs) 

and raised crosswalks/intersections. Other measures to reduce risks for crossing pedestrians include 

the following: 

•	 Pedestrian crossing warning signs to warn motorists of an upcoming crosswalk and identify the 

crosswalk location, specifically in locations that are more challenging to identify. 

•	 Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) to let waiting pedestrians begin to cross at signalized intersections prior to vehicles. This helps improve visibility of crossing pedestrians and can reduce 

conflicts with turning vehicles. 

•	 Signage to help bring attention to crossing pedestrians. These can include blackout Yield to 

Pedestrian signs and pedestrian hybrid beacons, shown in Figure 6. 

•	 High-visibility crosswalk pavement markings at intersections to draw the driver’s awareness to 

the crossing. 

15 Federal Highway Administration. Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and 

Recommended Guidelines. FHWA–HRT–04–100. Available: 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf. 

16 
17 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 

Figure 6. On left: Blackout Yield to Pedestrian sign (Source: Orange Traffic). 

On right: pedestrian hybrid beacon (Source: FHWA).

Corridor access management. A higher number of driveway access points along a corridor increases 

the crash risk for all users, as was observed in the RSA study areas. Corridor access management can 

be implemented by combining driveways and reducing the number of entrances onto the roadway, 

thereby reducing the number of potential conflict points. Modifications to the number of access 

points could be accomplished during changes in land use and redevelopment. 

Increased separation of modes. Consider alternatives to provide physical separation of motorized 

vehicles from bicyclists and pedestrians. In Orlando, Florida, at the intersection of West Colonial 

Drive and North Pine Hills Road, drivers were using the bike lane and buffer as a right turn lane 

and were also encroaching on crossing pedestrians in the crosswalk. Moving the buffer so that it is 

placed between the bike and travel lanes would provide bicyclists additional separation from motorized vehicles. Additionally, at intersections, a physical barrier in the buffer could be used to prevent 

vehicles from using this space as a turn lane and would reduce the pedestrian crossing distance. As 

shown in the example in Figure 7, alternative designs that provide additional protection to non-motorized users are recommended. 

Figure 7. Focus area in the Orlando, FL area (West Colonial Drive and North Pine Hills Road)
 

showing possible intersection improvements (Map data: ©Google). 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

18 

Road diets are an effective way to reduce speeds and in some instances can provide space for an 

increased separation of modes. Road diets are FHWA-proven safety countermeasures that reallocate 

space from travel lanes to provide safety improvements such as two-way left-turn lanes, medians, 

or dedicated space for bicycles and pedestrians.16 The primary goals of a road diet are “enhanced 

safety, mobility and access for all road users and a ‘complete streets’ environment to accommodate 

a variety of transportation modes.”17 

Figure 8 shows how a road diet could be implemented on Patton Avenue in the City of Asheville, 

starting at the entrance to the city. At Clingman Avenue, one traffic lane could be removed to allow 

for on-street parking and a bike lane as displayed in. This would provide several benefits: 

•	 A narrower cross-section would make it easier for pedestrians to cross Patton Avenue. 

•	 Space could be provided for a designated bike lane and on-street parking. 

•	 Narrowing of the roadway would provide traffic calming and could potentially reduce the frequency/severity of crashes. 

•	 Pedestrian refuge island at the intersection with Clingman Avenue provides a refuge for pedestrians as well as indications to drivers of the change in roadway conditions form suburban to 

urban. 

• Designate bus-pullout bays could be used to minimize traffic disruption on Patton Avenue. 

Figure 8. Patton Avenue road diet concept diagram (Map data: ©Google). 

16 Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/. 

17 Federal Highway Administration. Road Diets (Roadway Reconfiguration). Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 

Intersection geometric modifications. Intersection modifications can provide opportunities for 

improvements that benefit all roadway users. Some of the potential benefits include improved sight 

distance, reduced crossing distance, and speed modifications. 

In addition, alternative intersection designs, such as roundabouts, could facilitate pedestrian crossings, reduce potential conflicts within the intersection, and improve traffic flow. The intersection 

of Florida Mall Avenue and August Lane is an example of an intersection that could benefit from 

this type of treatment. Figure 9 shows a conceptual diagram of changes that could be made to the 

intersection along with a diagram of a mini-roundabout provided by FHWA. 

Trucks may need to pass 

over central island 

Entrance line and splitter

island defined by inscribed

circle diameter or by swept

path of large vehicles 

Splitter island mountable

or painted yellow 

Boundary of

inscribed circle 

Central island 

sized to provide

deflection for 

passenger cars 

Figure 9. Alternative intersection design option. On top: mini-roundabout intersection 

conceptual diagram from Florida Mall location in Orlando, Florida. 

On bottom: mini-roundabout diagram (Map data: ©Google; Graphic source: FHWA).
 

19 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

20 

	 

	 

	 

	 

Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this document is to help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies: 

1. Understand conditions that affect the safety of transit riders. 

2. Apply the RSA process to address these conditions. 

RSA teams conducted four RSAs at locations with a high frequency of crashes, high transit ridership, 

or at locations where planning for changes to transit service are underway. 

The RSA locations included urban and suburban areas with transit facilities and included a multidisciplinary team of planners, engineers, transit managers and operators, and law enforcement. This 

multidisciplinary perspective and experience of transit personnel was critical to defining approaches 

to improving transit rider safety using the 4-E approach to safety. 

RSA teams identified existing countermeasures or those under review that may improve the safety 

of transit users. These include the promotion of multimodal and complete streets environments, implementing innovative crossing measures, and a history of collaboration among agencies to address 

safety and transit planning. 

A lack of detailed data is a key issue inhibiting a fuller understanding of the factors that affect the 

safety of transit riders. This includes detailed pedestrian and bicyclist crash data, transit incident 

reports, and an understanding of origins and destinations of transit riders. 

During the RSAs, the RSA team concluded that certain conditions appear to present challenges to 

transit users. These were: 

•	 Lack of ADA compliant accessible routes and transit stops. 

•	 Driver behavior and lack of yielding to pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks. 

•	 Lack of pedestrian crossing measures along routes to transit stops, including pedestrian signals 

and crosswalks. 

•	 Pedestrian mid-block crossings due to wanting to use the most direct route or intentionally 

crossing away from intersections due to safety concerns. 

RSA teams suggested a variety of potential countermeasures to address these issues. Some of these 

suggested countermeasures included improving ADA compliance, evaluating the need for pedestrian 

crossing measures, implementing corridor access management techniques, and increased separation of modes. 

As the case studies in this document demonstrate, RSAs can be a useful tool in addressing transit 

safety. Collaboration among city, state, and transit agencies is key to that success. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A: TRANSIT ACCESS ROAD

SAFETY AUDIT CASE STUDIES

RSA Case Study No. 1—Ronstadt Transit Center and Surrounding 

Area, Tucson, Arizona

Project Overview

Project Location: The Ronstadt Transit Center and surrounding area, including five intersections in the 

vicinity of the transit center. 

Project Environment: Urban 

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway 

Project Owner(s): Sun Tran and the City of Tucson, Arizona 

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: March 29-31, 2016 

RSA Stage(s): Transit Access RSA of existing roads and transit facilities 

RSA Team: Representatives from the City of Tucson, Pima Association of Governments, Sun Tran, 

the Tucson Police Department, and VHB. 

Project Background

The purpose of this study was to complete a transit road safety audit (RSA) for Sun Tran and the City 

of Tucson, Arizona. Tucson was one of four cities selected for RSA assistance as part of the Mayor’s 

Challenge, an initiative from the Department of Transportation Secretary to improve pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety in urban areas.18 The City of Tucson wanted to conduct an RSA to document some 

of the challenges to pedestrian and bike safety, including incidents involving pedestrians and transit 

vehicles and multimodal interactions around the Ronstadt Transit Center. 

The Ronstadt Transit Center is Sun Tran’s largest transit center, served by 27 different routes (14 local 

and 13 express). The transit center serves over 100 buses an hour during peak hours. The transit 

center is located in downtown Tucson, just west of the Amtrak Station, between East Pennington 

Street, North 6th Avenue, East Congress Street, and North Toole Avenue. The study area for this RSA 

includes the Ronstadt Transit Center and the surrounding streets. The triangular study area is framed 

by North Toole Avenue to the north and east, 6th Avenue to the west, and East Broadway Boulevard 

to the south (Figure A- 1). The study area did not include an assessment of conditions along North 

Toole Avenue between North 6th Avenue and North 4th Avenue, North 5th Avenue north of East 

Congress Street, and South Arizona Avenue. 

18 U.S. Department of Transportation. Mayor’s Challenge for Safety People, Safer Streets. Available: 

https://www.transportation.gov/mayors-challenge. 

A-1 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


 

Figure A-1: Aerial image of the RSA study area for the Ronstadt Transit Center and surrounding area 

(Map data: Microsoft® BingTM).

Key RSA Findings and Suggestions

Upon completing the data analysis and field observations, the RSA team identified a number of 

issues and suggestions. The following presents a summary that highlights several main points. 

Overarching Safety Issues, Ronstadt Transit Center and Surrounding Areas

Concerns/ Issues 

Automobiles and Transit. The transit center is not 

open to general traffic, and includes signage at the 

entrances indicating such. The RSA Team noted on 

numerous occasions drivers entering the transit center. 

Street Closures. Another contributing factor observed 

during the RSA was the closure of the western left of 

the intersection of East Pennington Street and North 

Toole Avenue. Drivers missed the “Road Closed” sign 

and by the time they realized they could not continue 

they use the transit center loop to turn around. 

Street Parking. The RSA Team also discussed the 

interactions of parked vehicles and the streetcar. 

Currently, some blocks along the streetcar route 

provide on-street parking. If a vehicle is improperly 

parked, it can impede the streetcar from continuing 

along the track. This situation requires the streetcar to 

wait for the offending vehicle to be moved or towed. 

Pedestrian Crossings. The RSA team noted that 

pedestrians cross against the “Do Not Walk” indication 

at intersections with lower traffic volumes. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Signage. Installing more conspicuous “Do Not Enter, 

Authorized Vehicles Only” would likely help compliance 

and reduce the number of private vehicles driving into 

the transit center. This could include utilizing larger signs, 

more conspicuous signs, or identifying locations and sign 

positioning that is more noticeable. These locations would 

need to consider the turning movements and dimensions of 

the buses traveling into the center as well. 

Geometric Changes. Consider removing parking along 

Congress Street and/or Broadway Boulevard to eliminate 

violations that interfere with streetcars. The removal of 

parking could provide opportunities for expanded sidewalks 

or other outdoor space for public or commercial uses. 

Signal Phasing. Consider shortening the cycle length of 

pedestrian signals to 60 seconds at these locations where 

traffic volumes do not warrant a longer cycle length. This 

should result in better compliance from pedestrians waiting 

to cross the street. Also, the city should consider making the 

pedestrian intervals automatic and not require the use of 

buttons at some of the signals. The shorter cycle length will 

mean that special additional turn arrows are not desirable for 

the downtown signal system. 

A-2 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


	

Focus Area #1: Toole Avenue/East Alameda Street/North 6th Avenue
 

Concerns/ Issues

Restricted Sight Distance. Intersection geometry and building 

placement combine to create challenging sight lines for 

vehicles attempting to turn left from North 6th Avenue to 

East Alameda Street and drivers turning left from northbound 

North Toole Avenue to southbound North 6th Avenue. It is 

particularly difficult for drivers turning left to see pedestrians 

waiting on the corner to cross East Alameda Street and North 

6th Avenue. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Curb Extension. Reduce the pedestrian crossing 

distance and improve visibility of pedestrians at the 

intersection by extending the existing curb extension 

on East Alameda Street and adding a curb extension 

on the southwest corner of the intersection along 

North 6th Avenue. Any reconfiguration of the curb line 

should consider future bicycle infrastructure designs 

that may be installed along East Alameda Street. 

Top Photo: Sight lines of turning traffic from westbound East 

Toole Avenue to North 6th Avenue. Bottom Photo: Signage 

designed to alert pedestrian to watch for turning vehicles 

(Photo credit: Dan Nabors). 

Confusing Pedestrian Signs. Signage has been installed, 

alerting both drivers and pedestrians to watch for each other 

when turning or crossing the street. The signage intended 

for pedestrians is a black and white sign informing them to 

“Watch for Turning Traffic”. This message was considered 

confusing to pedestrians because it is not a typical application 

of the sign. 

Above: diagram showing the curb extensions 

on East Alameda Street and North 6th Avenue 

(Map data: Microsoft® BingTM). 

Modify Pedestrian Warning. Replace existing black 

and white “WATCH FOR TURNING TRAFFIC” signage 

with yellow warning sign and consider alternative 

warning methods such as adding pavement marking 

warnings for pedestrians to watch for turning vehicles. 

MUTCD R10-15 sign TURNING VEHICLES [YIELD] TO 

[PEDESTRIAN] at the East Toole Avenue and North 

Avenue intersection (Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
	

A-3 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Focus Area #1: Toole Avenue/East Alameda Street/North 6th Avenue (cont.)
 

Concerns/ Issues

Atypical Traffic Signalization. The City utilizes a flashing yellow 

arrow to alert drivers to make the left turn cautiously, and 

look for pedestrians. This indication is given for northbound 

drivers at the same time the opposing drivers are seeing a 

red indication. This type of application is atypical of standard 

industry practices, and is not applied anywhere else in Tucson. 

This could create a situation where left turning vehicles seeing 

a flashing yellow arrow do not expect to encounter opposing 

traffic. 

Bike Lane Intersection Conflicts. There are bike lanes along 

the western leg of East Toole Avenue that transition to shared 

lane markings to the east of North 6th Avenue. The size and 

geometry of the intersection create a situation where it is 

not clear how cyclists should travel through the intersection. 

“Watch for Turning Traffic”. This message was considered 

confusing to pedestrians because it is not a typical application 

of the sign. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Signal Modification. Replace the non-standard flashing 

yellow arrow with a green ball and supplement the 

traffic signal with the appropriate static or illuminated 

signage R10-15 alerting drivers to the presence of 

pedestrians. 

Signal Phasing. Return the signal to a two-phase 

operation, with Mayor and Council approval, to 

allow for the improvement in the overall pedestrian 

movement throughout the entire downtown area. 

Pavement Markings. Consider using green transition 

markings to indicate to cyclists how they should travel 

through the intersection and transition from the bike 

lane to the shared lane markings. The green bike 

lane pavement markings have interim approval in 

the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices and as 

such, approval must be requested by FHWA prior to 

implementation.19,20 

Transition Markings

Above: An example of the dashed bicycle lane and green pavement 

markings that could be considered in transition areas (Source: VHB). 

19,20 

19 Federal Highway Administration. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Interim Approval for Optional Use of Green Colored 

Pavement for Bike Lanes (IA-14). April 15, 2011. Available: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia14/. 

20 Federal Highway Administration. Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices: Interim Approvals Issued by FHWA. Available: 

http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/res-interim_approvals.htm. 

A-4 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


	

Focus Area #2: North 6th Avenue and East Pennington Street

Concerns/ Issues

Temporary Limited Access. The “Road Closed” signage 

warning drivers about the closure of East Pennington Street 

was not visible to vehicles attempting to turn right from North 

6th Avenue onto East Pennington Street. 

Confusing Vehicle Signage. There was an overhead warning 

sign mounted to the signal mast arm over northbound North 

6th Avenue alerting drivers that the “Lane Ends Merge Right”. 

The lane does not end, but instead becomes a left-turn only 

lane. The existing signage is not clear to drivers. 

Limited Sight Distance. When buses are parked along North 

6th Avenue near the intersections with East Pennington 

Street, they block sight lines of the southeast corner for 

approaching northbound vehicles. This makes it challenging 

for both pedestrians and vehicles to see each other. 

Cyclist Behavior. Northbound cyclists were observed 

squeezing between queuing vehicles and parked buses, which 

could be risky. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Limited Access Signage. Place a “No Right Turn, Except 

Buses” sign at the southeast corner of the intersection 

of North 6th Avenue and East Pennington Street. The 

sign should be located so that it is visible to traffic 

traveling northbound along North 6th Avenue. 

Diagrammatic Signage. Consider replacing the 

overhead signs warning about the lane ending with a 

lane diagrammatic sign to more clearly communicate 

the lane geometry. 

Bus Bay Alignment. Consider pulling the bus parking 

area back from the intersection of North 6th Avenue 

and East Pennington Street to provide better sight lines 

for pedestrians and approaching vehicles. 

Pavement Markings. Consider shifting the shared lane 

markings along North 6th Avenue from the right edge 

to the center of the lane. 

Example of a shared-lane marking placed in the 

center of the lane (Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
	

A-5 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


	


	


	


	


	


 


 


 

Focus Area #3: North 6th Avenue and East Congress Street

Concerns/ Issues

Unmarked Lanes. The lane striping used along East Congress 

Street approaching North 6th Avenue does not clearly indicate 

that the curb lane is a bus only lane. This was noted as part of 

the general observations for the study. 

Limited Sight Distance. Approximately 150 feet north of the 

intersection is a bus-only exit for the transit center. Exiting 

buses have poor sight lines of approaching traffic. 

Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings. Pedestrians were observed 

crossing North 6th Avenue mid-block between East Congress 

Street and East Pennington Street. This area is planned for 

redevelopment, likely increasing pedestrian activity. There is 

currently no mid-block crossing here. 

Above: View looking south along
	

North 6th Avenue from behind the stop bar at
	

the bus exit (Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
	

Above: Bus only lane along East Congress Street uses broken 

lane markings with “Bus Only” and red curbpaint as opposed 

to the hatched pavement markings found along 

North 6th Avenue (Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
	

Examples of Suggested Actions

Pavement Markings. Consider applying hatched 

pavements markings across the Bus Only lane along 

East Congress Street. Adding lane use markings at the 

intersection will also more clearly inform drivers of 

which lane they should be using. 

Turning Sight Distance Improvements. Consider 

removing at least two parking spaces along North 6th 

Avenue just south of the exit from the transit center. 

This can be done on a temporary basis to identify how 

many spaces should be removed to improve sight lines 

for buses. 

Mid-block Pedestrian Crossing Improvements.

Consider adding a mid-block crossing on North 6th 

Avenue as part of the redevelopment of the transit 

center. 

Above: Suggested pavement marking 

changes along Congress Street 

(Map data: Microsoft® BingTM).
	

Above: Example of hatched pavement markings
 

in bus only lane along North 6th Avenue
 

(Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
 

A-6 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


 


 

Focus Area #4: East Broadway Boulevard and South 5th Avenue
 

Concerns/ Issues
 

Right Turning Vehicle and Streetcar Conflicts.
 

Vehicles turning right from eastbound Broadway onto 

southbound South 5th Avenue from the through 

lane as the streetcar receives its advance signal have 

resulted in collisions. Additionally, vehicles attempting 

to turn right on red from northbound South 5th 

Avenue to eastbound East Broadway Boulevard while 

the streetcar/bus is stopped have poor sight lines of 

approaching traffic. 

Roadway Alignment. Vehicles turning left from 

southbound South 5th Avenue to eastbound East 

Broadway Boulevard exit a single turn lane into multiple 

receiving lanes. 

Potential Left-Turn/Transit Conflicts. The streetcar has 

a turnaround along South 5th Avenue that provides the 

ability to short-turn streetcars if there is an incident 

blocking the tracks further down the line. The tracks 

transition from the southbound through lane across the 

left-turn lane. If there is a left turning vehicle stopped at 

the stop bar it blocks the streetcar from advancing. 

Long Crossing Distance. There was a higher number of 

crashes involving vehicles and pedestrians noted at this 

intersection. The crossing distance across the eastern 

leg of the intersection is wider, resulting in longer 

pedestrian crossing times. 

High Speed Traffic. The additional travel lane on East 

Broadway Boulevard east of South 5th Avenue, and 

the change in building setbacks and heights results 

in vehicles increasing speed as they pass through the 

intersection. This change in speed impacts vehicles 

leaving downtown as they approach Aviation Highway. 

Driver Behavior. Drivers were observed to use the 

streetcar/bus-only lane approaching the intersection 

from the west. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Blackout Illuminated Signage. Install an electronic “No 

Right Turn on Red” sign across East Broadway Boulevard and 

northbound South 5th Avenue that illuminates when the 

streetcar is stopped. 

Skip Lines. Consider adding dotted line markings to extend 

the South 5th Avenue southbound left turn lane line 

markings through the intersection. 

Example of dotted line markings to extend the left-turn 

lane line markings into the intersection (Source: MUTCD). 

Intersection Modifications. Pull the stop bar back for the 

southbound left turn lane, and avoid adjusting the signal 

phasing to provide priority LEFT ARROW to the streetcar. 

Consider the possibility of an early GREEN priority. 

Sidewalk Extensions. Bulb-out the southeast corner of the 

intersection to reduce the pedestrian crossing distance, add 

a short LPI and narrow the three travel lanes to two. 

Road Diet. To address the long crossing distance, high 

speeds, and driver behavior, implement a road diet on 

Broadway from 5th Avenue to 4th Avenue. Reduce the 

street cross-section to include two general purpose lanes 

and a bus lane. The repurposed lane can be converted to 

provide parking, a bike lane, or an expanded sidewalk. This 

should include relocating the bus stop to the new curb line 

and pulling it back west from the intersection to improve 

sight lines. Additionally, the bike lane should be placed in 

between the new bus lane and the curb to further separate 

cyclists from the vehicular travel lanes and to avoid busses 

stopping in the bike lanes at transit stops. 

Enforcement. Increase enforcement efforts at the end of 

the travel lane/beginning of the bus-only lane to encourage 

motorists to merge into the adjacent travel lane 

A-7 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


	


	


	


	


	


	


	

Focus Area #5: East Congress Street and 5th Avenue

Concerns/ Issues

Stop Bar Placement. The northbound left turn lane stop bar 

crosses the Sun Link tracks. 

Gaps in Streetcar Tracks. There were incidents involving 

cyclists whose bike wheels became trapped in the tracks at 

the split in the streetcar tracks. Due to their smaller wheel 

size, it is more difficult for cyclists to traverse roadway 

elements that may not pose a hazard to other roadway users 

with larger wheels. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Pavement Markings. Shift the stop bar for the 

northbound left from South 5th Avenue back 25 feet. 

Bicycle Safety Measures. Consider adding a two-stage 

left turn queue block for bikes turning left from East 

Congress Street onto South 5th Avenue so that cyclists 

can completely avoid crossing the tracks or cross them 

at a 90 degree angle, allowing them to cross without 

trapping their wheels in the tracks. 

Left turn lane stop bar currently crosses the streetcar 

tracks, blocking the streetcar if vehicles are pulled 

forward (Photo credit: Dan Nabors). 

Example of relocating the stop bar and providing 

a two-stage left turn queue box for cyclists 

(Photo credit: Dan Nabors; Map data: ©Google). 

Streetcar track split can present challenges for bicycles 

attempting to turn left and cross over the multiple tracks 

(Photo credit: Dan Nabors).
	

A-8 
A-9 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

RSA #1 Conclusions 

This Transit Access RSA focused on addressing some of the safety challenges related to transit use, 

particularly for pedestrians and cyclists, in the vicinity of Ronstadt Transit Center in Tucson, Arizona. 

The transit center is located in downtown Tucson, and is the area’s busiest center in terms of bus 

activity. The transit center is also located along Tucson’s streetcar line, which connects the University 

of Arizona to downtown and Mercado. 

Crash data for the study area was provided by the City and included crashes for the past six years 

involving a bus, pedestrian, or bicyclist. This resulted in 76 total crashes, with the majority focused 

around the intersection of East Broadway Boulevard and South 5th Avenue. There were no serious 

injuries or fatalities reported. 

The study area included many positive findings including: a quality transit system, strong multimodal 

culture, and numerous efforts to promote and revitalize the downtown area. Despite the many 

positive attributes observed, there were also some identified safety concerns. The study area is 

located in an urban setting with a high level of multimodal activity resulting in many interactions 

between motorized vehicles and pedestrians or bikes, and transit vehicles (both bus and streetcar) 

and all users. At some intersections, roadway geometry creates reduced sight distance, awkward 

turning angles, or long crossing distances. Some of the recommendations involve improving pedestrian crossings by extending the curb to shorten the crossing distance, or considering a leading 

pedestrian interval. Other improvements propose applying consistent pavement markings around 

the transit center to reduce confusion for all users. Changing the parking zones around the transit 

center would improve sight lines for both pedestrians, vehicles, and buses. Applying traffic calming 

measures to locations where the design currently cues drivers to speed up will improve conditions 

for pedestrians and cyclists. Lastly, pavement marking and signage improvements are proposed at 

specific locations to improve operations for the streetcar and bus. 

Following this RSA, the City will need to work with its partner agencies (AZDOT, Sun Tran, and others) 

to identify those recommendations that are higher priority. The area around the transit center is 

planned for some significant changes in the future and the issues and countermeasures identified as 

part of this RSA should be considered as future development projects are proposed and designed. 

Tying improvements to other larger efforts, where feasible, will improve safety and convenience for 

all users and result in a more consistent and cohesive design. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

RSA Case Study No. 2— Main Street Corridor, Springfield, Oregon
 
 Project Overview

Project Location: Four locations: One urban area surrounding the Springfield Transit Center and three 

suburban areas, Main Street from 17th Street to 23rd Street, Main Street from 41st 

Street to 42nd Street, and Main Street from 54th Street to 58th Street. 

Project Environment: Suburban and Urban 

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway and planning stage 

Project Owner(s): City of Springfield, Oregon 

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: April 13-14, 2016 

RSA Stage(s): Transit access RSA of existing roads and transit facilities 

RSA Team: Representatives from the City of Springfield, Lane Transit District (LTD), Oregon 

Department of Transportation (ODOT), and VHB. 

Project Background

In April 2016, the City of Springfield, Oregon, conducted a dual-focus Road Safety Audit (RSA) on 

the Main Street Corridor to look at locations with existing transit-related safety concerns and evaluate the impact of potential changes to the transit network. The City and the Lane Transit District 

(LTD) are currently undergoing planning efforts related to a possible extension to their Bus Rapid 

Transit (BRT) network that would extend BRT service from the Springfield Bus Terminal to the east 

along Main Street. Springfield was one of four cities selected for a Transit access RSA as part of the 

Mayor’s Challenge, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Transportation to improve pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety in urban areas.21 

21 U.S. Department of Transportation. Mayor’s Challenge for Safety People, Safer Streets. Available: 

https://www.transportation.gov/mayors-challenge. 

A-10 
A-11 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Figure A-2: State Route 7 Study Area (Source: ©Google Maps).

RSA Overview

The RSA team reviewed an approximately 4.8-mile portion of Main Street and South A Street 

between Pioneer Parkway and 58th Street. As shown in Figure A-2, the RSA team identified four 

focus areas along Main Street based on one or more of the following factors: crash history, existing 

multimodal safety concerns, and proposed BRT routing and station locations. The four focus areas 

include the following: 

• Focus Area 1: Main Street and South A Street from Pioneer Parkway to 5th Street. 

• Focus Area 2: Main Street from 17th to 23rd Street. 

• Focus Area 3: Main Street from 41st Street to 42nd Street. 

• Focus Area 4: Main Street from 54th Street to 58th Street. 

Key RSA Findings and Suggestions

After completing the RSA field review, the RSA team developed a list of overarching and site specific 

issues as part of the RSA process. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


 


 


	

Overarching Safety Issues, Main Street Corridor, Springfield, Oregon
 

Concerns/ Issues
 

ADA compliance and accommodations for older pedestrians.
 

The RSA team noted many instances where marked and 

unmarked crossings were not ADA compliant and were lacking 

ramps or detectable warning strips. It was also discussed that 

to the east of the downtown area, there is a large population 

of older and/or disabled individuals. It is important to ensure 

ADA compliance so that all individuals are able to access 

transit facilities. 

Example of ramp at an unmarked crosswalk on 

Main Street (Photo credit: Elissa Goughnour).
	

Unmarked crossings and mid-block crossings. The RSA team 

witnessed many pedestrians crossing at unmarked crossings 

or mid-block crossings. While unmarked crossings are legal 

crossing locations, drivers may not expect pedestrians to cross 

Main Street outside of the marked crosswalk locations due to 

the high speeds and wide crossing distance. 

Bicyclist behavior. The RSA team noted many instances 

of wrong-way and sidewalk riding despite the presence of 

bike lanes. Bicyclists may have a relatively low bike comfort 

level due to proximity to the travel lane, pavement quality, 

speed differential between bikes and the neighboring motor 

vehicles, debris in the bike lane, poor drainage, and the rough 

transition between the pavement and gutter pan. 

Lighting. During dark conditions, it was difficult to identify 

pedestrian crossings, particularly on the eastern portion of the 

study area. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Ensure that pedestrian routes and crossings are ADA 

compliant. This is particularly important in areas with 

an aging population or populations with mobility 

challenges. The city should review pedestrian routes 

and develop or update a Transition Plan for addressing 

the necessary changes to bring the routes up to 

current ADA standards. 

Evaluate bus stop locations. Continue evaluating bus 

stop locations and types – such as near-side or farside, curb or bus-bay, etc. – based on crash risk and 

pedestrian desire lines and behavior. Review both 

crash records and LTD logged incidences. 

Continue and enhance education efforts. Many 

people may be unaware that unmarked crossings 

are legal crossings. However, according to the same 

FHWA study referenced above, “On multilane roads 

with traffic volumes greater than 12,000 vehicles per 

day, having a marked crosswalk was associated with a 

higher pedestrian crash rate (after controlling for other 

site factors) compared to an unmarked crosswalk.”2 

Education efforts can help education both drivers and 

pedestrians on pedestrian-related laws but also safe 

crossing techniques. Similarly, education efforts are 

needed to educate cyclists about wrong-way riding, 

sidewalk riding, and mid-block crossings. 

Bike lane maintenance. Ensure that the bike lane is 

swept regularly and is free of debris. Also, during 

the next paving cycle, inspect to make sure there is a 

smooth transition between the pavement and gutter 

pan, so that cyclists can use the full width of the bike 

lane, and also to help ensure that the road drains 

properly and does not pool in the bike lane. 

Lighting. Review/add lighting on eastern portion of 

corridor, particularly at intersections, transit stops, 

and certain pedestrian crossings. During the nighttime 

field review, the RSA team noted that while street 

lighting was present, these locations were either unlit 

or the lighting did not effectively light the area. 

A-12 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


 

Overarching Safety Issues, Main Street Corridor, Springfield, Oregon
 

Concerns/ Issues

Corridor access. There are many roadway access points, 

particularly on the eastern end of Main Street. A four-leg 

intersection has 32 conflict points and a three-leg intersection 

has nine conflict points. Each roadway access point (i.e. 

driveway, commercial entrance, etc.) has many potential 

conflict points which increase the crash risk for all roadway 

users. Additionally, with so many entrances into the roadway 

there are many opportunities for slower moving vehicles to 

enter or exit the roadway, leading to a speed differential with 

faster moving vehicles continuing straight along the road. 

Diverging
 

Merging
 

Crossing
 

Conflict points for three and four-leg intersections 

(source: FHWA). 

Examples of Suggested Actions
 

A competition was used in Nevada for educational 

messaging. This image is one of the winners of 

the competition and was displayed at bus shelters 

(source: LasVegas NOW). 

Continue to evaluate crossing locations. The city 

should continue to review pedestrian crossing 

locations to evaluate whether a marked crosswalk is 

needed and if additional crossing countermeasures 

are necessary. During the RSA, the team witnessed 

many students crossing South A Street near the 

Academy of Arts and Academics, at the intersection of 

6th Street and South A Street. If a marked crosswalk 

is added at this intersection, then additional crossing 

countermeasures should be considered, such as a 

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, RRFB, or reconfiguring 

the road to two lanes until after the intersection 

and installing curb extensions. Alternatively, the 

city could try to install measures to deter crossings 

at this location, such as using vegetation or fencing, 

and encouraging students to cross at the signalized 

intersection at 5th and South A Street. 

A-13 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Overarching Safety Issues, Main Street Corridor, Springfield, Oregon
 

Concerns/ Issues

Lighting. During the nighttime field review, the RSA team 

noted that while street lighting was present, certain 

intersections, transit stops, and pedestrian crossings were 

either unlit or the lighting did not effectively light the area. 

Conflicts between right turning vehicles and pedestrian and 

bicyclists. As indicated by the crash report descriptions and 

as witnessed during the field reviews, there are numerous 

conflicts between turning vehicles, particularly right turning 

vehicles, and crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 

Glare at dawn and dusk. Main Street and South A Street are 

primarily oriented in an east-west direction. As a result, sun 

glare can reduce driver visibility, particularly their visibility of 

traffic signals. Signal backplates are a proven countermeasure 

to improve signal conspicuity and can assist drivers during 

periods of high glare such as at dawn and dusk.22 As 

retroreflective backplates were present throughout the 

study area, the city should continue to investigate additional 

measures to mitigate this concern. 

Rear-end collisions at bus stop locations. The Lane Transit 

District noted that rear end collisions involving vehicles hitting 

stopped transit buses are relatively common. These crashes 

could be due to speed, distraction, or congestion. 

Lack of understanding of pedestrian crossing treatments.

Some members of the RSA team noted that they felt 

drivers were initially confused about how to respond to the 

rectangular rapid flash beacons on Main Street. 

High speeds on South A Street. The RSA team noted that 

drivers seemed to travel at high speeds on South A Street, 

particularly after the road widens to three lanes east of the 

intersection with 5th Street. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Corridor access management. There are two primary 

ways that corridor access management could be 

implemented throughout the study area. First by 

combining driveways and reducing the amount of 

entrances onto the roadway, thereby reducing the 

number of potential conflict points. Modifications to 

the number of access points could be accomplished 

during changes in land use and redevelopment. 

The second way is by reallocating space from wide 

travel lanes to provide buffered bike lane. Currently, 

the widening of South A Street from two lanes to 

three lanes at 4th Street, and the lack of unsignalized 

intersections between 5th Street and Main Street, 

encourages faster speeds. Also, the wide cross-section 

and open feel on Main Street also encourages higher 

speeds. Reallocating space through a road diet could 

provide a variety of safety benefits along both roads. 

Pedestrian Crossing Measures. Consider implementing 

measures to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and 

vehicles and/or reduce pedestrian crossing distance. 

In addition to the measures discussed, such as curb 

extensions, median refuge islands, and road diets, 

there are other measures to reduce risk for crossing 

pedestrians. 

Continued Countermeasure Education. Several 

education efforts are underway regarding some of 

the new countermeasures, such as the rectangular 

rapid flash beacon. Those education measures should 

be continued to ensure that a broader audience is 

reached. 

22, 

RSA #2 Conclusions

This Transit Access RSA focused on the Main Street corridor in Springfield, Oregon from Pioneer 

Parkway to 58th Street. The city and LTD are currently undergoing planning efforts related to a 

possible extension to their Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) network that would extend BRT service from the 

Springfield Bus Terminal to the east along Main Street. The purpose of this RSA was to investigate 

current safety concerns related to transit stops and access, and also possible changes associated 

with converting the bus routes to BRT. 

22 Federal Highway Administration. Field Guide for Inspecting Signalized Intersections to Reduce Red-Light Running. FHWASA-05-008. Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/conventional/signalized/rlr/rlr_05fieldguide/. 

A-14 
A-15 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

There were several positive features including coordination between agencies, proactive efforts to 

address safety through transit stop location, installation of pedestrian crossing measures, lighting 

and sign clutter studies. LTD has also worked to provide attractive transit stop amenities with seating and transit shelters. 

Many of the safety concerns at each of the focus areas were common to the entire study area. 

Some of the safety concerns included ADA compliance and accommodations for older pedestrians, 

unmarked and mid-block crossings, motorists yielding behavior to crossing pedestrians and bicycles, 

bicyclist riding behavior, and numerous roadway access points. 

Some of the identified countermeasures include reviewing accessible routes to transit facilities 

develop a plan for ADA compliance; implementing corridor access management and a road diet; 

increase visibility of pedestrian crossings through high visibility crosswalks, LPI, and intersection 

signage; also increasing pedestrian and bicycle education. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 


 

	 

	 

	 

RSA Case Study No. 3—Orlando, Florida
 Project Overview

Project Location: Urban intersections with approximately 16 transit stops and two super stops. The 

study area includes the Florida Mall and surrounding area, including the highest use 

transit Super Stop. 

Project Environment: Suburban and Urban 

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway 

Project Owner(s): Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: May 23-24, 2016 

RSA Stage(s): Transit access RSA of existing roads and transit facilities 

RSA Team: Representatives from Orange County, Central Florida Regional Transportation 

Authority, MetroPlan Orlando, Orange County Neighborhood Preservations & 

Revitalization, the Florida Department of Transportation, and VHB. 

Project Background

Nationally, pedestrian fatalities rose in 2015 by 9.5 percent, despite a decrease in the number of 

motor vehicle crash fatalities on US roadways during the same period according to the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration23. Pedestrian fatalities accounted for over fifteen percent of 

total motor vehicle fatalities nationwide during the same year. 

In Florida, there were 628 pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in 2015, making up almost twelve 

percent of the nationwide total. In order to address non-motorized fatalities and injuries, agencies 

throughout Florida have made a concerted effort to focus on pedestrian and bicycle safety. In May 

2016, Orange County and the Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority (LYNX), with assistance from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and MetroPlan Orlando, conducted 

a Transit Road Safety Audit (RSA) to proactively address safety at transit stops throughout Orange 

County, FL within the Orlando metropolitan area. Orange County was one of four communities 

selected for Transit access RSA assistance as part of the Mayor’s Challenge, an initiative of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety in urban areas. 

RSA Overview

The RSA conducted reviews of the following three study areas: 

•	 Focus Area 1: West Colonial Drive & North Pine Hills Road. 

•	 Focus Area 2: Econlockhatchee Trail & Valencia College Lane. 

•	 Focus Area 3: Florida Mall (specifically the intersections of West Sand Lake Road & South 

Orange Blossom Trail and Summer Day Lane & West Sand Lake Road). 

23 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Facility Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Available: 

http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx. 

A-16 
A-17 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 

As shown in Figure A-3, the study areas are all located within unincorporated Orange County in the 

Orlando metropolitan area. The three focus areas were identified based on potential risk due to 

exposure and transit stops with the highest ridership, leading to high pedestrian and bike activity. 

Figure A- 3. Transit Access RSA focus areas in the greater Orlando metropolitan area (Map data: ©Google).
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Key RSA Findings and Suggestions

After completing the RSA field review, the RSA team developed a list of overarching and site specific 

issues as part of the RSA process. 

Overarching Safety Issues, Orlando, Florida

Concerns/ Issues

Bicyclist behavior. The RSA team noted many instances of 

wrong-way and sidewalk riding. This could be attributed 

to a relatively low bike comfort level from the proximity to 

travel lane as none of the bike lanes were buffered, speed 

differential between cyclists and motorists, and maintenance/ 

debris. 

Pedestrian crossing behavior. Throughout the focus areas, 

the RSA team noted pedestrians crossing mid-block on wide 

multi-lane roadways. Mid-block crossings were also a source 

of pedestrian crashes – four of the study area crashes involved

pedestrians crossing mid-block and two of those resulted in 

fatalities. Some members of the RSA team received feedback 

that pedestrians feel unsafe crossing at the intersections and 

so would rather cross away from it. 

Conflicts between right turning vehicles and pedestrians/

bikes. There were numerous conflicts between turning 

vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The RSA team viewed 

vehicles disregarding crossing pedestrians and cyclists during 

both the green phase and while making right-turns on red. 

Pavement Markings. There were several instances where 

pavement markings could be improved to help provide 

additional positive guidance to roadway users. There was 

a gap in pavement markings on West Colonial Drive that 

appeared to be related to recent paving as the pavement 

markings not being applied all the way to the paving join. 

On West Colonial Drive, there was a lack of cyclist and arrow 

pavement markings to denote the space as a bike lane versus 

a shoulder. Bike lanes were dashed at most driveways instead 

of just at the intersections, which could indicate a lower level 

of caution for drivers pulling out of driveways. The buffer was 

provided between the bike lanes and the curbs, rather than 

the bike lane and through lane where it could be used to 

provide additional separation between modes. Some of the 

crosswalk pavement markings were faded. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Education. Provide education targeting pedestrians 

and cyclists. Education should be provided on the risks 

associated with sidewalk riding, mid-block crossing 

safety and bicycle laws. 

Bicycle and pedestrian facility evaluation. Evaluate 

placement of bicycle and pedestrian facilities to 

ensure that they are located on desirable routes and 

that they are ADA complaint. For example, ensure 

that bicycle facilities are located where they provide 

 access to attractions and also are located/designed so 

that bicyclists will feel comfortable using them. Route 

evaluation is of particular concern in relation to transit 

stops so that riders have access to the stop and to 

nearby destinations. 

Improve pavement markings. Extend all roadway 

pavement markings on West Colonial Drive so 

that they are continuous and start at the paving 

joint. Reapply faded pavement markings and install 

crosswalks on all legs of the intersections as necessary 

to provide access between transit stops. Modify 

bicycle lane pavement markings on West Colonial 

Drive so that the buffer is located in between the 

bike lane and the travel lane. Provide solid bike lane 

edgelines at driveway entrances, and place additional 

cyclist and arrow pavement markings so that drivers do 

not confuse the bike lane with a shoulder or additional 

travel lane. 

A-18 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies


 


 
 


 

Focus Area #1: West Colonial Drive and North Pine Hills Road
 

Concerns/ Issues
 

Drivers using bike lane and buffer as a right turn lane. 

The RSA team watched drivers on the westbound 

approach encroach on the bicycle lane and use it as a 

right turn lane. Additionally, there were conflicts between 

vehicles turning right from the bike lane and vehicles 

turning right from the travel lane. 

Lack of yielding to pedestrians and bikes in crosswalk. As 

was apparent by the crash reports and time spent in the 

field, many right-turning drivers did not yield to pedestrian 

and cyclists crossing at the intersection. 

Bus stop placement. Bus stops at this location were 

placed away from the intersection due to signal spacing. If 

a transit rider needed to cross the road, quite often they 

would try to cross mid-block. 

Lack of accessible routes to transit stops. The routes 

leading to transit stops near this intersection were not 

ADA compliant. Despite the presence of a sidewalk, it 

was difficult to access some of the transit stops as the RSA 

team noted vegetation and debris blocking the sidewalk 

and non-ADA complaint ramps. 

Pedestrian behavior. As mentioned in the overarching 

issues, pedestrians throughout the study area were 

crossing mid-block on high-speed multi-lane arterials 

rather than at controlled intersection crossings. 

Bicycle lane pavement markings. There was also a lack of 

cyclist and arrow pavement markings in the bike lanes on 

West Colonial Drive. Additionally, it was noted that the 

bike lane pavement markings were dashed at driveway 

entrances. 

Large number of driveway entrances in close proximity. 

The more driveway entrances along a corridor, the higher 

the number of potential conflict points and risk for a 

crash for motorized and non-motorized vehicles alike. 

Additionally, the high frequency of driveways can pose 

issues when trying to place transit stops. 

Debris on road. Debris on the road and sidewalks can be 

difficult for cyclists to avoid or maintain traction. 

Examples of Suggested Actions
 

Increased separation of modes at the intersection.
 

Along this corridor, the bicycle lane buffer was provided 

between the bike lane and the curb. If the buffer was 

moved to the other side, it would provide bicyclists 

additional space from motorized vehicles. Additionally, 

at the intersection, a physical barrier could be used to 

prevent vehicles from using this space as a turn lane. 

Modify signal operations. Consider signal options to 

reduce the potential for conflict between right-turning 

vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists. Implementing a leading 

pedestrian interval (LPI) would allow pedestrians and 

cyclists crossing at the intersection to begin crossing 

before motorized vehicles, making them more visible to 

motorists. Additionally, the complimentary measure of 

restricting right-turns by installing a no-right-turn-on-red 

sign would increase the effectiveness of the LPI and would 

further reduce potential conflicts. 

Review transit stop placement and accessible routes. 

Review transit stop placement to ensure that stops are in 

desirable locations and encourage crossing at protected 

locations. Also, evaluate the routes to access these stops 

and create a plan to bring those routes up to current ADA 

standards through the ongoing implementation of the 

County’s adopted ADA Transition Plan. 

Crossing pavement markings. In order to encourage 

pedestrians and cyclists to cross at the intersection, 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities need to be enhanced 

to provide more direct access between destinations, to 

improve awareness and visibility of pedestrian and bicycle 

crossings. Install high-visibility crosswalks on all legs of 

the intersection and consider using colored pavement 

markings in bike lanes through the intersection. 

Corridor access management. Build upon the existing 

corridor access management measures of the landscaped 

median by reducing the frequency of driveway access. 

On the northeast corner of the intersection, there are 

four driveway access locations. The driveways could be 

condensed down to two, which would reduce the crash 

risk and provide space to move the transit stop closer to 

the intersection. 

Debris and vegetation growth. Sidewalks and roadway 

should be inspected to ensure they are free of debris and 

clear for cyclist and pedestrian use. Vegetation should 

also be trimmed and maintained in order to improve sight 

distance and user ability of sidewalks and bike lanes. 

A-19 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Focus Area #2: Econlockhatchee Trail and Valencia College Lane
 

Concerns/ Issues

Continuous right turn lane. Northbound on Econlockhatchee 

Trail, there is a continuous right turn lane. The turn lane 

is effectively 1,700 feet long on Econ Trail. As this long 

continuous lane is located on the right side of the bike lane 

there is the potential for cyclists to have faster moving 

motorized vehicles on both the right and left side. 

Long crossing distance on Econlockhatchee Trail. Pedestrians 

and cyclists have a long crossing distance on Econlockhatchee 

Trail. The wide roadway promotes higher vehicle speeds and 

with large crossing distances, non-motorized users are at a 

higher risk of conflict with motorized vehicles. 

Large intersection radii. The large corner radii at the 

intersection of Econlockhatchee Trail and Valencia College 

Lane encourage higher speed turning movements and higher 

risk conflicts with crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 

Stop bar placement and sight distance. The stop bar on the 

westbound intersection approach, for vehicles leaving the 

college, is placed too far back for adequate sight distance. 

Lighting. The northern portion of this focus area is welllit with new LED street lights. However, south of Valencia 

College, the street lights are discontinued. It may be difficult 

for driver’s eyes to adjust to the change in lighting during dark 

conditions, which can pose a higher risk to cyclists in the bike 

lanes at risk. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Reallocate space. Better define the necessary length 

for the right turn lanes providing access to the Valencia 

College property. Consider using the remaining space 

to provide a buffer to the bike lane. 

Reduce crossing distance. Investigate opportunities to 

reduce crossing distances through reducing curb radii 

and installing curb extensions/islands. 

Modify stop bar placement. Modify stop bar 

placement on the westbound approach to ensure 

adequate sight distance. 

Add/modify street lighting. Investigate the potential 

for continuing street lighting to the south on 

Econlockhatchee Trail. 

A-20 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Focus Area #3: Florida Mall Area

Concerns/ Issues

Right slip lane/island design. The design of islands at the 

intersection of Orange Blossom Trail and West Sand Lake 

Road have large radii that promote high-speed right turns. 

This presents a risk to pedestrians crossing from the island 

over to the intersection corner and for vehicles merging 

from the right turn lane turns into the through lanes. 

Lack of warning/visibility of pedestrian crossings. There 

were no signs (in advance or at the crosswalk) warning 

motorists of the pedestrian crossings in the northbound 

and southbound directions. Additionally, at the southeast 

corner and the northwest corners it is difficult to see 

waiting/crossing pedestrians. 

Lack of pedestrian accommodations at Sand Lake 

Road and Summer Day Lane. There are no pedestrian 

accommodations (pedestrian signal and pavement 

markings) along western leg of Sand Lake Road and 

Summer Day Lane. The RSA team witnessed many 

pedestrians crossing along this leg of the intersection in 

order to travel from the mall over to the transit stop on 

the north side of Sand Lake Road. 

Confusion at Florida Mall Ave intersections and wide 

crossings. A LYNX Super-Stop is located on Florida Mall 

Avenue between Sun Life Path and August Lane. At the 

intersection with August Lane and Florida Mall Avenue 

many motorists were confused about who had the rightof-way. The intersection is two-way stop controlled with 

stop signs on Florida Mall Avenue as are three other mall 

entrances. There is only one entrance that is four-way 

stop-controlled. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Modify right slip lane/island design. Evaluate the 

potential to redesign the right slip lane islands to provide 

right turning vehicles with a better view of crossing 

pedestrians, cyclists, and on-coming vehicles. 

Provide better visibility and warning of crossing 

pedestrians. Ensure that drivers approaching the 

intersection have an unobstructed view of waiting 

pedestrians. Also due to the high speeds of right turning 

vehicles, provide pedestrian warning signs in advanced 

of the intersection (W11-2) and on both sides of the 

crosswalk (W11-2 and W16-7P). 

W11-2 and W16-7P (Source: MUTCD). 

Florida Mall Avenue intersection improvements. With 

the pedestrian activity accessing the mall and Super-Stop, 

the intersections should incorporate elements to help 

reduce crossing distances, such as curb extensions and 

median refuge islands. With the confusion among drivers 

about right of way, additional wayfinding signs could 

provide additional guidance to drivers. Another option 

could include investigating alternate intersection designs. 

A roundabout would facilitate pedestrian crossings, 

reduce potential conflicts within the intersection, and 

improve traffic flow in and out of the mall. 

Accessible routes. Work with business owners to 

encourage and determine the feasibility of adding 

accessible paths to their businesses. A separate pathway 

would provide direct access for pedestrians rather than 

requiring them to use the driveway alongside motorized 

vehicles. 

A-21 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Focus Area #3: Florida Mall Area (cont.)

Concerns/ Issues

Long crossing distances. At the August Lane and Florida 

Mall Avenue intersection, pedestrians traveling to and 

from the mall and the Super-Stop have long crossing 

distances ranging from approximately 90 to 100 feet. 

Lack of accessible paths from bus stop to neighboring 

destinations. There were pathways worn into the grass, 

indicating the path that pedestrians travel from the transit 

stop to neighboring destinations. 

Pathway leading to the shopping center on the 

northwest corner of West Sand Lake Drive and Summer 

Day Lane intersection (Photo credit: Elissa Goughnour).
	
	

A wheelchair user accessing the same shopping center 

by using the driveway (Photo credit: Elissa Goughnour).
	

Examples of Suggested Actions
 

Alternative intersection design option. Mini-roundabout 

intersection conceptual diagram (Map data: ©Google).
	


	

Boundary of

inscribed circle 

Central island 

sized to provide

deflection for 

passenger cars 

Mini-roundabout diagram (Source: FHWA).
	

Trucks may need to pass 

over central island 

Entrance line and splitter

island defined by inscribed

circle diameter or by swept

path of large vehicles 

Splitter island mountable

or painted yellow 


 


	

A-22 
A-23 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

RSA #3 Conclusions

This Transit Access RSA focused on three locations in unincorporated Orange County within the 

Orlando, Florida, metropolitan area. Orange County and LYNX have been working to improve safety 

for transit users and used this RSA to investigate transit stops with the highest ridership where safety 

has not been recently addressed through other projects. The purpose of this RSA was to investigate 

current safety concerns related to non-motorized access to transit stops. 

There were several positive features, including coordination between agencies, proactive efforts to 

address safety, incorporating/adopting Complete Streets measures, dedicated bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and the presence of corridor access management measures. LYNX has also worked to 

provide attractive transit stop amenities including seating, trash receptacles, and lighted shelters. 

There were some area-wide safety concerns present, such as the conflicts between turning vehicles 

and crossing pedestrians and cyclists and mid-block crossings. Some of the issues at each of the 

specific focus areas included wide crossings, transit stop location, high driveway density, ADA compliance, and lack of pedestrian crossing treatments. 

Some of the identified countermeasures include reviewing accessible routes to transit facilities 

and developing a plan for ADA compliance, implementing corridor access management measures, 

reallocating space to narrow crossings and provide buffered bicycle lanes, and providing pedestrian 

crossing measures. 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

RSA Case Study No. 4— Asheville, North Carolina
 
 Project Overview

Project Location: Four locations: One urban area surrounding the Springfield Transit Center and three 

suburban areas, Main Street from 17th Street to 23rd Street, Main Street from 41st 

Street to 42nd Street, and Main Street from 54th Street to 58th Street. 

Project Environment: Suburban and Urban 

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway 

Project Owner(s): City of Asheville, North Carolina and North Carolina Department of Transportation 

(NCDOT) 

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: August 2-4, 2016 

RSA Stage(s): Transit access RSA of existing roads and transit facilities 

RSA Team: Representatives from the City of Asheville Planning, Transportation, Transit, and 

Special Projects, Asheville Police, North Carolina Department of Transportation, 

Accessible Design for the Blind, and VHB. 

Project Background

The purpose of this study was to complete a Transit Access RSA in Asheville, North Carolina. 

Asheville is one of four cities selected for RSA assistance as part of the Mayor’s Challenge, and initiative from the Department of Transportation Secretary to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety in 

urban areas.24 The City of Asheville wanted to conduct an RSA to document some of the challenges 

to transit stop access. 

RSA Overview

The subject intersections are all located on the Patton Avenue corridor, which runs from downtown 

Asheville due west until it merges with Smokey Park Highway, see Figure A- 4. Patton Avenue is a 

major corridor for the area with multiple commercial businesses along the perimeter. The study area 

varies from urban to suburban and starts at the intersection with Coxe Avenue and ends west at the 

intersection with Haywood Road. The RSA team identified five transit stops along Patton Avenue 

based on one or more of the following factors: crash history, existing multimodal safety concerns, 

intersection design, and pedestrian and bike usage. The study areas include the following: 

• Study Area 1: Patton Avenue from Coxe Avenue to Asheland Avenue. 

• Study Area 2: Patton Avenue and Pearl Street. 

• Study Area 3: Patton Avenue and Florida Avenue. 

• Study Area 4: Patton Avenue and New Leicester Highway. 

• Study Area 5: Patton Avenue and Haywood Road. 

24 U.S. Department of Transportation. Mayor’s Challenge for Safety People, Safer Streets. Available: 

https://www.transportation.gov/mayors-challenge. 

A-24 
A-25 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

Figure A- 4. Transit Access RSA study areas for Asheville, North Carolina (Map data: ©Google).
 
 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 


	


	

Key RSA Findings and Suggestions

After completing the RSA field review, the RSA team developed a list of overarching and site specific 

issues as part of the RSA process. 

Detailed Issues: Downtown Asheville, Patton Avenue from Coxe Avenue to Asheland Avenue and Patton Avenue at 

Pearl Street

Concerns/ Issues

Pedestrian signal phasing. The RSA team noted that 

pedestrian behavior, when waiting for the appropriate phase 

to cross, has reduced compliance due to longer wait times. 

Also noted that pedestrian phasing coincides with traffic signal 

phasing creating a greater chance of conflict areas between a 

pedestrians and vehicles turning onto Patton Avenue. 

Unmarked crossings and mid-block crossings. The RSA team 

witnessed many pedestrians crossing at unmarked crossings, 

mid-block crossings, and/or crossing against the pedestrian 

signal. While unmarked crossings are legal crossing locations, 

drivers may not expect pedestrians to cross Main Street 

outside of the marked crosswalk locations due to the high 

speeds and wide crossing distance. 

Driver speed and yield behavior. The RSA team noted driver 

behavior when approaching an intersection with a pedestrian 

present, that little or no attempt was made to yield to 

pedestrains. In addition, driver speeds were higher than the 

posted speed limit of 20 mph. 

Image shows an example of pedestrians crossing outside
	

of the crosswalk (Photo credit: Elissa Goughnour).
	

Examples of Suggested Actions

Pedestrian Crossing Measures. The City should review 

signal timing and ability for pedestrians to call the 

signal during non-peak hours by using the push button. 

Additionally, use pedestrian counts to determine if 

certain intersections warrant modified pedestrian 

phases. 

Continue and enhance education efforts. Many 

people may be unaware that unmarked crossings are 

legal crossings. Education efforts can help education 

both drivers and pedestrians on pedestrian-related 

laws but also safe crossing techniques. Similarly, 

efforts are needed to educate cyclists about wrongway riding, sidewalk riding, and mid-block crossings. 

Speed reduction through road diet. Road diets 

are a FHWA proven safety countermeasure that 

reallocate space from travel lanes to provide safety 

improvements such as two-way left-turn lanes, 

medians, or dedicated space for bicycles and 

pedestrians.25 The primary goals of a road diet are, 

“Enhanced safety, mobility and access for all road 

users and a “complete streets” environment to 

accommodate a variety of transportation modes.”26 

Currently, the wide four-lane undivided roadway on 

Patton Avenue encourages higher speeds. Reallocating 

space through a road diet could provide a variety of 

safety benefits along the corridor. 

25 Federal Highway Administration. Proven Safety Countermeasures. Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/. 

26 Federal Highway Administration. Road Diets (Roadway Reconfiguration). Available: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/. 

A-26 

2526 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

 

27 

Detailed Issues: Downtown Asheville, Patton Avenue from Coxe Avenue to Asheland Avenue and Patton Avenue at 

Pearl Street (cont.)

Concerns/ Issues

ADA compliance. The RSA team noted many instances where 

marked and unmarked crossings were not ADA compliant 

and were lacking ramps or detectable warning strips. It is 

important to ensure ADA compliance so that all individuals are 

able to access transit facilities. 

Intersection Lighting. The nighttime field review identified 

reduced lighting at the intersections due to increased foliage. 

In some instances, street lights were out as well as reduced 

lighting from traditional bulbs when compared to LED lighting 

present in other parts of the corridor. 

Image shows reduced lighting at the intersection of Patton 

and Asheland Avenues. The intersecting road (Asheland 

Avenue) is highlighted within the red box, and is not visible 

to drivers due to reduced intersection street lighting 

(Photo credit: Elissa Goughnour). 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Ensure ADA compliance. Continue evaluating 

transit stops locations and pedestrian access to 

transit facilities. Ensure compliance with ADA access 

requirements for bus boarding and alighting areas.27 

Work with business owners to develop a plan for 

implementing measures, such as installing ramps, 

if features prohibit installation by the city and state 

(such as underground vaults in the downtown area of 

Asheville). 

Lighting. Review/add lighting at intersections, transit 

stops, and certain pedestrian crossings. During the 

nighttime review, the RSA team noted that LED lighting 

on Asheland Avenue is obscured by an overgrown 

tree, which should be trimmed to maximize lighting. 

The downtown corridor of Patton Avenue utilizes 

older yellow street lighting that is not as effective 

as LED lighting. The city should consider replacing 

or retrofitting the existing lighting with LED lights, 

in addition to replacing bulbs that are burnt out to 

ensure proper lighting on the corridor. 

27 US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility Design. Available: 

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAstandards.htm 

A-27 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

Detailed Issues: Suburban Asheville, Patton Avenue at Florida Avenue, Patton Avenue at New Leicester Highway, and 

Patton Avenue at Haywood Road

Concerns/ Issues

Pedestrian crossing widths. Patton Avenue expands from 

two lanes to three lanes in each direction with additional 

turn lanes at each intersection. This creates a greater 

crossing width for pedestrians, increasing time needed to 

safely navigate across. 

Yielding behavior of right turning vehicles. During the 

field review the RSA team witnessed numerous instances 

where turning vehicles, particularly those turning right, 

did not yield to crossing pedestrians and cyclists. 

Lack of crosswalks and pedestrian signals/pedestrian 

phasing. None of the intersections analyzed by the RSA 

team, outside the downtown area, have crosswalks or 

pedestrian signals. It can be difficult for pedestrians and 

cyclists crossing in the unmarked crosswalk, to know when 

to cross and at times. With split phasing, pedestrians 

could end up in the middle of the roadway when the 

signal phase changes. Additionally, the yielding rate 

for turning vehicles to pedestrians was low. Even while 

wearing vests, the RSA team noticed many drivers who did 

not yield to crossing RSA team members. 

Vegetation growth. In several locations the vegetation was 

overgrown, encroaching on the sidewalk and obscuring 

sight distance for drivers. 

Obscured crosswalk visibility. The RSA team identified 

two specific locations where pedestrians are not visible 

to drivers when attempting to cross. The first location 

is at the southeast corner of Haywood Road and Patton 

Avenue. A marked crosswalk is located in the middle 

of the right-turn slip lane. Drivers turning right from 

Haywood Road onto Patton Avenue cannot see waiting/ 

crossing pedestrians due to the location of street trees 

and vehicles parked on the periphery of the dry cleaning 

parking lot. 

Connectivity of accessible routes to transit stops. The 

RSA team noted that transit stops in several locations do 

not have adequate accessible routes. In particular, the 

intersection of Patton Avenue with Haywood Road has a 

refuge island with no pedestrian access. The island acts 

as a barrier for pedestrians to navigate across Haywood 

Road. 

Examples of Suggested Actions

Pedestrian crossing measures. Crosswalks and pedestrian 

signals should be installed at all legs of the study area 

intersections due to the amount of pedestrian activity 

and location of transit stops and transit rider destinations. 

This is particularly important in locations with wide 

roadway crossings that are more difficult for pedestrians 

to cross. For multilane (four or more lanes) roadways with 

a raised median and an AADT greater than 15 thousand, 

marked crosswalks should be combined with other 

pedestrian facility enhancements, such as pedestrian 

signals. 

Modify intersection geometry. Consider changing the 

geometry of the intersection of Patton Avenue with 

Haywood Road. The road currently functions as a fiveleg intersection with Ormond Avenue connecting in the 

middle of the right turn slip lane on the southwest corner. 

Intersecting at this location can result in confusion among 

drivers and the potential for high speed conflicts due to 

the large intersection radii and combination of traffic 

controls, including the traffic signal, a one-way stop on 

Ormond Avenue, and a yield where the right turn and 

Ormond Avenue combines with Haywood Road. 

Vegetation growth. Vegetation should be trimmed and 

maintained in order to improve the sight distance, such as 

at the intersection of Patton Avenue and Haywood Road 

and at the intersection of Patton and Florida Avenues. 

Accessible routes. Connectivity of accessible routes to 

transit stops is essential when evaluating transit rider 

safety. Consider reviewing transit rider origins and 

destinations and evaluating accessible routes in those 

areas. During the RSA, it was clear that pedestrians are 

in need of an accessible route along the southern side of 

Patton Avenue at the intersection with Haywood Road. 

Additionally, it is also important to work with business 

and property owners to evaluate the possibility of adding 

accessible routes to their properties. Even if an accessible 

route is provided along the road, transit riders still need to 

access destinations. 

A-28 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

 

Detailed Issues: Suburban Asheville, Patton Avenue at Florida Avenue, Patton Avenue at New Leicester Highway, and 

Patton Avenue at Haywood Road (cont.)

Concerns/ Issues Examples of Suggested Actions

High turning volumes at New Leicester Highway. The RSA 

team noted high right turn volumes from Patton Avenue 

to New Leicester Highway and high left turning volumes 

from New Leicester Highway onto Patton Avenue. On 

average, approximately half the volume on Patton Avenue 

originates from or turns onto New Leicester Highway. 

These high turning volumes have resulted in long 

vehicle queues and subsequent crashes just north of the 

intersection from northbound vehicles attempting to turn 

left into parking lots and intersecting roads. 

The high turning volumes and intersection crashes have 

made it necessary for NCDOT to look at alternate methods 

to accommodate traffic, such as adding in additional turn 

lanes, which in turns lengthens the pedestrian crossing 

distance. Additionally, the heavy turning movements with 

multiple turn lanes can pose a multiple threat to crossing 

pedestrians where one vehicle may stop but the vehicle in 

the next lane may not. 

Numerous roadway conflict points. There are many 

roadway conflict points, particularly on the southwest 

corner of Patton Avenue and Haywood Road, where 

Ormond Avenue intersects the channelized right-turn 

lane. Additionally, there are many roadway access points 

on Patton Avenue spread throughout the corridor. A 

four-leg intersection has 32 conflict points and a three-leg 

intersection has nine conflict points. 

Drainage on Patton Avenue. During the RSA field review 

the team witnessed large amounts of pooling water on 

Patton Avenue, likely due to poor drainage. 

Corridor access management. Throughout this portion 

of the study area, Patton Avenue had a high number 

of access points, thereby increasing the crash risk 

for all road users. Between New Leicester Highway 

and Florida Avenue, the majority of the access points 

were on the southern side of Patton Avenue. Corridor 

access management can be implemented by combining 

driveways and reducing the amount of entrances onto 

the roadway, thereby reducing the number of potential 

conflict points. Modifications to the number of access 

points could be accomplished during changes in land use 

and redevelopment, such as the redevelopment planned 

for the southwest corner of Patton and Florida Avenue. 

Drainage on Patton Avenue. Roadway drainage facilities 

should be inspected to ensure they are free of debris 

and operating properly. NCDOT is already reviewing 

stormwater management plans and flood plain analysis 

for the Patton Avenue corridor to determine implications 

for future drainage improvements. 

RSA #4 Conclusions

This Transit Access RSA focused on five locations in Asheville, North Carolina. The city of Asheville 

and NCDOT have been working to improve safety for transit users and used this RSA to investigate 

transit stop rider safety on a primary corridor through the city. The purpose of this RSA was to 

investigate current safety concerns related to non-motorized access to transit stops. 

There were several positive features, including coordination between agencies, proactive efforts 

to address transit stop safety, and upgraded pavement markings and street lighting. There were 

two distinct area types in the RSA study area; a downtown area and a more suburban area. The 

first three focus areas were in the downtown area. Some of the specific issues in this area included 

ADA compliance, turning vehicle yielding behavior, and pedestrian mid-block crossings. Some of 

the potential countermeasures included improving ADA compliance, implementing a road diet, and 

pedestrian crossing measures such as the LPI. 

A-29 
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

The remaining three focus areas were in a more suburban area west of the downtown area. Some 

of the specific issues in this area included lack of pedestrian crossing measures, vehicular speeds, 

numerous access points, and yielding behavior of right turning vehicles. Some of the potential 

countermeasures included corridor access management, modifying intersection geometry, and 

implementing a variety of pedestrian crossing measures. 

A-30 
A-31
 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies
Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies

A-32
 
A-33
 

Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies