SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH 

FOR THE URBAN CORE 

INFORMATIONAL REPORT
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. The U.S. Government does not endorse 

products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this document only 

because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. They are included 

for informational purposes only and are not intended to reflect a preference, approval, or 

endorsement of any one product or entity.

NON-BINDING CONTENTS

Except for the statutes and regulations cited, the contents of this document do not have the 

force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the States or the public in any way. This 

document is intended only to provide information regarding existing requirements under the 

law or agency policies. 

QUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Source: Cover photo- Getty Images
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-23-001

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Safe System Approach for the Urban Core

5. Report Date

May 2023

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Lead: Sarah Abel, Jeff Lindley, Luana Broshears

Support: Brian Almdale, Hector Chang, Ayden Cohen, Omar Peters

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name And Address

Institute of Transportation Engineers 

1627 Eye Street NW, Suite 550

Washington, DC 20006

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

Contract: DTFH6116D00055

Task Order: HSST210058PR 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE 

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

HSA

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Task Order Manager: Anyesha Mookherjee; ITE Project Manager: Jeff Lindley

16. Abstract

This report outlines how practitioners can apply the principles, elements, and frameworks of the Safe System Approach in policy, 

program, and project decision-making processes across the urban core through proven safety approaches for urban areas in the United 

States. A series of checklists is presented to help practitioners understand how to apply the Safe System Approach at a policy, program, 

and project level, as well as how to apply it to address some of the key challenges that are specific to the urban core environment, such 

as urban arterials, speed management, urban intersections, and safety of vulnerable road users.

The report includes 10 case studies of noteworthy practices that are relevant to implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban 

core. Eight of these case studies are from States or cities in the United States, and two are from international locations in Europe and 

South America that cover multiple locations each. These case studies provide practical examples of how some of the key concepts 

covered in the report have already been implemented and the benefits that have been realized.

17. Key Words

Safe System Approach, Urban Core, Urban 

Arterials, Speed Management, Urban Core 

Intersections, Vulnerable Road Users

18. Distribution Statement

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

130

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
ii

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS

APPROXIMATE COVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol What You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm

ft feet 0.305 meters m

yd yards 0.914 meters m

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km

AREA

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME

floz fluid ounces 29.57 mililiters mL

gal gallons 3.785 liters L

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or “metric ton”) Mg (or “t”)

TEMPERTURE (exact degrees)

0F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 or (F-32)/1.8 Celsius 0C

ILLUMINATION

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux N

fl foot-Lambers 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa

APPROXIMATE COVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol What You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol

LENGTH mm millimeters 0.039 inches in

m meters 3.28 feet ft

m meters 1.09 yards yd

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi

AREA mm2 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2

VOLUME

ml millimeters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz

L liters 0.264 gallons gal

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3

MASS

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or “t”) megagrams (or “metric ton”) 1.103 short ton (2000lbs) T

TEMPERTURE (exact degrees)

0C Celsius 1.8 C+32 Fahrenheit 0F

ILLUMINATION

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.02919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS

N newtons 0.225 poundforce Ibf

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch Ibf/in2

*SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with

Section 4 of ASTM E380. (Revised March 2003)
iii

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ix

Introduction 1

The Safe System Approach 5

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN ......................................................................................................................... 7

SELF-ENFORCING OR SELF-EXPLAINING ROADS ................................................................................... 7

KINETIC ENERGY FORCES AND THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ...................................................... 8

SUCCESS WITH THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH INTERNATIONALLY ............................................ 8

SHIFTING FROM TRADITIONAL SAFETY TO THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH ..........................11

THE URBAN CORE CONTEXT 13

SUSTAINABLE SAFETY....................................................................................................................................14

MOVEMENT AND PLACE FRAMEWORK ...................................................................................................14

SAFETY OF VULNERABLE ROAD USERS AS A PRIORITY IN THE UNITED STATES ................16

THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH AND THE URBAN CORE CONSIDERATIONS 17

POTENTIAL CONCERNS ..................................................................................................................................17

PRIORITIZING SAFETY AND SAFE MOBILITY ........................................................................................19

IMPORTANCE OF EQUITY AND SAFETY IN THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH .............................19

How Key Existing Resources Relate to the Safe System Approach in the 

Urban Core 21

FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES .....................................................................................21

FHWA SAFE TRANSPORTATION FOR EVERY PEDESTRIAN (STEP) ..............................................22

FHWA COMPLETE STREETS INITIATIVE .................................................................................................22

AASHTO POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 7TH EDITION ....23

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL .........................................................................................................................23

NONREGULATORY GUIDES FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS (NACTO) .................................................................................................24

PIARC ROAD SAFETY MANUAL ....................................................................................................................25

The Safe System Approach Framework in the Urban Core 27

SEPARATION OF USERS IN SPACE AND TIME ........................................................................................27

SEPARATION IN SPACE....................................................................................................................................27

Bicyclist Separation ...................................................................................................................................27

Pedestrian Separation...............................................................................................................................28

Transit User Separation .............................................................................................................................29

SEPARATION IN TIME......................................................................................................................................29

Bicyclist Separation ...................................................................................................................................29

Pedestrian Separation...............................................................................................................................30

REDUCTION OF CRASH KINETIC ENERGY ...............................................................................................30
iv

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Design Speed and Target Speed .............................................................................................................31

Speed Limit Reduction ..............................................................................................................................31

Speed Limit Setting ..................................................................................................................................31

Speed Reduction Through Engineering .................................................................................................31

Speed Reduction Through Education and Enforcement .....................................................................32

INCREASED ATTENTIVENESS AND AWARENESS ................................................................................32

Applying the Safe System Approach in the Urban Core 35

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH IN THE URBAN CORE SAFETY PLANNING CHECKLIST ................36

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH IN THE URBAN CORE PROJECT CHECKLIST ......................................37

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................39

Applying the Safe System Approach to Specific Urban Core Challenges ......................................41

Urban Arterials in an Urban Core ............................................................................................................41

Urban Arterials in an Urban Core Safe System Approach Checklist ..............................................42

Speed Management..................................................................................................................................42

Speed Limit Setting and the Safe System Approach Checklist .........................................................43

Urban Core Intersections ...............................................................................................................................44

Urban Core Intersection Safe System Approach Checklist ................................................................45

Vulnerable Road Users .....................................................................................................................................45

Vulnerable Road Users Checklist .................................................................................................................47

Case Studies of Noteworthy Practices 49

Conclusions, Use, and Next Steps 51

References .............................................................................................................................................................52

APPENDIX – DETAILED CASE STUDIES OF NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

Vision Zero Shifts Austin Towards the Safe System Approach –Austin, TX, USA 59

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................59

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................59

Background.................................................................................................................................................60

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................61

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................63

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................64

References...................................................................................................................................................64

Vision Zero Implementation on Arterial Roadways in the Downtown

–Boulder, CO, USA 65

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................65

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................65

Background.................................................................................................................................................66

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................67

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................68

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................69

References...................................................................................................................................................69

Table of Contents (continued)
v

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Cambridge Combines Planning and Projects that Increase Safety for All – 

Cambridge, MA, USA 71

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................71

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................72

Background.................................................................................................................................................72

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................73

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................74

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................75

References ..................................................................................................................................................75

Milwaukee Avenue Complete Streets Project – Chicago, IL, USA 77

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................77

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................77

Background.................................................................................................................................................77

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................78

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................80

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................81

References...................................................................................................................................................81

2020 Vision Zero: Vulnerable Road User Improvements – Fremont, CA, USA 83

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................83

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................83

Background.................................................................................................................................................84

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................84

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................85

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................85

References ..................................................................................................................................................86

MassDOT Applies the Safe System Approach in Policies, Programs, 

and Practices – Massachusetts, USA 87

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................87

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................87

Background.................................................................................................................................................89

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................90

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................92

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................93

References...................................................................................................................................................93

Using Vision Zero as a Goal and Putting Actions in Motion to Eliminate Traffic 

Deaths in the Downtown Core – Minneapolis, MN, USA 95

Key Successes .............................................................................................................................................95

The Safe System Approach Highlights ...................................................................................................95

Background.................................................................................................................................................96

Implementation .........................................................................................................................................97

Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................................98

Additional Information .............................................................................................................................99

References...................................................................................................................................................99

Table of Contents (continued)
vi

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Washington State Collaboration with Local Jurisdictions

– Washington State, USA 101

Key Successes ...........................................................................................................................................101

The Safe System Approach Highlights .................................................................................................101

Background...............................................................................................................................................101

Implementation .......................................................................................................................................102

Outcomes ..................................................................................................................................................103

Additional Information ...........................................................................................................................105

References.................................................................................................................................................105

European Union Case Studies 107

Key Successes ...........................................................................................................................................107

The Safe System Approach Highlights .................................................................................................107

Background...............................................................................................................................................108

Implementation and Outcomes ............................................................................................................108

Additional Information ........................................................................................................................... 110

References................................................................................................................................................. 111

South America Case Studies 113

Key Successes ........................................................................................................................................... 113

The Safe System Approach Highlights ................................................................................................. 113

Bogotá, Colombia..............................................................................................................................................114

Background............................................................................................................................................... 114

Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 114

Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 114

São Paulo, Brazil .............................................................................................................................................. 115

Background............................................................................................................................................... 115

Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 115

Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 116

Salvador, Brazil ................................................................................................................................................ 116

Background............................................................................................................................................... 116

Implementation ....................................................................................................................................... 116

Outcomes .................................................................................................................................................. 117

Additional Information ........................................................................................................................... 117

References ................................................................................................................................................ 117

Table of Contents (continued)
vii

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

List of Figures

Figure 1. Chart. Roadway fatality trends compared yearly from 1975 to 2020 per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled..............................................................................................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Graphic. The principles of the Safe System Approach ..............................................................................5

Figure 3. Graphic. The Safe System Approach elements ............................................................................................6

Figure 4. Graphic. The Safe System Approach Framework .......................................................................................6

Figure 5. Graphic. Risk of death based on vehicle speeds .........................................................................................8

Figure 6. Graphic. Statistics on the Safe System Approach in Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, and 

New Zealand................................................................................................................................................................................9

Figure 7. Graphic. Improving safety using the Safe System Approach also improves the entire system .....9

Figure 8. Image. Before and after photos of Catharijnesingel in Utrecht, Netherlands between 2000 

and 2018..................................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Figure 9. Graphic. Shift from traditional safety toward the Safe System Approach .......................................11

Figure 10. Graphic. Movement and Place Framework .............................................................................................. 15

Figure 11. Graphic. Modal roadway safety hierarchy based on vulnerability to safety risk ........................ 16

Figure 12. Graph. Cost per mile to build Complete Streets projects vs. an average arterial road ........... 18

Figure 13. Graphic. Proven Safety Countermeasure Summary ............................................................................. 21

Figure 14. Graphic. STEP Selection Process ...................................................................................................................22

Figure 15. Graphic. Protected intersection diagram ..................................................................................................32

APPENDIX 

Figure 1. Screenshot. Vision Zero ad in Austin, Texas, USA .....................................................................................59

Figure 2. Image. Vision Zero Austin mural.....................................................................................................................60

Figure 3. Image. Temporary signage identifying Cameron Road as a high-injury roadway to raise 

awareness until safety improvements are constructed ........................................................................................... 61

Figure 4. Image. Separated bike lane to sidewalk transition that separates users in space in Austin ....62

Figure 5. Map. Funded Speed Management Program projects overlaid on percent population 

non-white ..................................................................................................................................................................................63

Figure 1. Illustration. Existing configuration (left) and vision (right) for changes to East Arapahoe 

Avenue, including bus rapid transit lanes and separated bike lanes ..................................................................65

Figure 2. Graphic. Excerpt of different left-turn signal-timing phases being deployed in Boulder 

to reduce left-turn crashes. The city is implemented flashing yellow arrows (FYA) as a quick-build 

improvement............................................................................................................................................................................66

Figure 3. Image. Rendering of 30th Street and Colorado Avenue intersection improvements 

(protected intersection, underpasses) under construction) ...................................................................................68
viii

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Figure 1. Image. Bicycle amenities in Cambridge.......................................................................................................71

Figure 2. Image. Western Avenue Reconstruction Project with sidewalk-level separated bicycle lane 

and curb extensions..............................................................................................................................................................72

Figure 1. Diagram. Gaps between crosswalks along Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and 

California Avenue....................................................................................................................................................................78

Figure 2. Images. Existing conditions and proposed improvements along Milwaukee Avenue between 

Western Avenue and California Avenue ........................................................................................................................79

Figure 3. Image. Plastic curbs and green bike boxes at the Milwaukee Avenue and California Avenue 

intersection...............................................................................................................................................................................80

Figure 1. Image. Protected Intersection in Fremont, CA, at Civic Center Drive and Walnut Avenue ......83

Figure 2. Image. Raised bicycle track along Walnut Avenue in Fremont ..........................................................86

Figure 3. Images. Before (top) and After (bottom) photos of intersection safety improvements that 

apply the Safe System Approach in an urban core at Kelley Square ..................................................................88

Figure 4. Image. Rendering of proposed changes to Commonwealth Avenue with new sidewalk and 

two-way separated bike lanes...........................................................................................................................................89

Figure 5. Map. Safety analysis module depicting corridors at high risk for pedestrian crashes ...............90

Figure 6. Project elements of the Kelley Square project in Worchester, MA ....................................................91

Figure 1. Image. The city has implemented new projects in the downtown core, such as a separated 

bike lane on South Washington Avenue .......................................................................................................................95

Figure 2. Map. High injury network and project prioritizations map .................................................................96

Figure 3. Illustrative rendering for Hennepin Avenue redesign showing separated, behind-the-curb 

bike lane, widened sidewalk and transit stop ..............................................................................................................98

Figure 1. Map. Regions with assigned Target Zero Managers (TZMs) in Washington ................................102

Figure 2. Map. Example of area showing LPI locations in Seattle ......................................................................104

Figure 1. Image. Renovated and widened sidewalks at Joel Carlos Borges Street in São Paulo ............ 113

Figure 2. Image. Low-speed zone at the Santana neighborhood in São Paulo ........................................... 115

Figure 3. Image. Low-speed zone improvements in the Bonfim neighborhood in Salvador ................ 116

List of Tables

Table 1. WSDOT Target Zero strategies for addressing safe systems fatalities and serious injuries ......103
SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

ix

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Executive Summary

There is strong interest in understanding how to apply the Safe System Approach in high-density areas at an areawide scale that have a mix of vehicle types, land uses, and road users. The Safe System Approach is focused on

taking a holistic view of the roadway system and those who use it to anticipate human mistakes and keeping the 

crash-related kinetic energy impacts on all road users at tolerable levels. 

Integrating Safe System principles into transportation projects can lead to more proactive and lasting roadway

safety benefits for all users, especially in the urban core, where there are greater numbers of people walking,

rolling, and cycling. Information is needed on how roadway owners, operators, and designers can use Safe System

principles to help steer decisions that improve safety for all road users over the range of street environments

typical in the urban core.

The urban core typically has the greatest density of people in a given area and features a mix of land uses in a

block. It is also often characterized by a strong street grid made up of mostly local roads, which are connected

to collectors and urban arterials that often bisect the urban core. The Safe System Approach in the urban core

should consider a mix of vehicle types, mixed-use development, and diverse road users. Urban core areas have

the highest volume of activity, and the patterns of activity are complex. Road users in the urban core include

transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, drivers of service and commercial vehicles, drivers

of personal vehicles, and ride share services. This report focuses on prioritizing the safety of all road users on

local roads and urban arterials in the densest parts of a community.

Implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban core can also address unique concerns. Right-of-way

acquisition and mobilization costs are a deterrent for implementing many types of infrastructure safety projects

in dense urban areas. A way to implement the Safe System Approach in the urban core efficiently, then, is to focus

on effectively redesigning facilities within the existing right-of-way by applying roadway reconfigurations.

The Safe System Approach is a human-centered approach that anticipates human mistakes and accommodates

human vulnerabilities through design and operations that are safer for all road users. Key strategies for

implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban core are separation of users in space and time, reduction

of crash kinetic energy, and increased attentiveness and awareness. It is important to apply the Safe System

Approach equitably to help address structural and institutional racism by correcting for under-investments in

historically underserved communities.

Thisreport outlines how practitioners can apply the principles, elements, and framework of the Safe System

Approach in policy, program, and project decision-making processes across the entire system through proven

safety approaches for urban areas in the United States. A series of checklists are presented to help practitioners

understand how to apply the Safe System Approach at the policy, program, and project levels as well as how to

apply it to address some of the key challenges that are specific to the urban core context, such as urban arterials

in an urban core, speed management, urban core intersections, and safety of vulnerable road users.

The report includes 10 case studies of noteworthy practices that are relevant to implementing the Safe System

Approach in the urban core. Eight of these case studies are from States or cities in the United States, and two

are from international locations in Europe and South America that cover multiple locations each. These case 

studies provide practical examples of how some of the key concepts covered in the report have already been 

implemented and the benefits that have been realized.

1

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Introduction

The Safe System Approach has been embraced by the transportation community as an effective way to address 

and mitigate the risks inherent in our enormous and complex surface transportation system. It works by building 

and reinforcing multiple layers of protection to both prevent crashes from happening in the first place and 

minimize the harm caused to those involved should crashes occur. It is a holistic and comprehensive approach 

that provides a guiding framework to make places safer for people. This is a shift from a conventional safety 

approach because it focuses on both human mistakes and human vulnerability as well as system designs with 

many redundancies in place to protect everyone. The U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) has adopted a 

Safe System Approach as the guiding paradigm to address roadway safety as part of its National Roadway Safety 

Strategy (U.S. DOT 2022).

The Safe System Approach is consistent with use of a Complete Streets design model that prioritizes safety, 

comfort, and connectivity for all users of the roadway. Integrating Safe System principles into transportation 

projects can lead to more proactive and lasting road safety benefits for all users. This is particularly the case for 

streets in vibrant communities where there are likely greater numbers of people walking, rolling, and cycling.

The urban core typically includes areas with the highest density, with mixed land uses within and among 

predominantly high-rise structures. The urban core is mostly found in the central business districts and adjoining 

portions of major metropolitan areas, where the volume of activity is high and the patterns of activity are 

complex. Further, road users in the urban core include transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, 

drivers of service and commercial vehicles, drivers of personal vehicles, and ride share services. Information is 

needed on how roadway owners, operators, and designers can use Safe System principles as is a framework to 

help steer decisions that improve safety for all road users over the range of street environments typical in the 

urban core.

There are several examples of how the Safe System Approach can be implemented in the urban core; however, 

a comprehensive resource for practitioners interested in implementing a Safe System Approach to prioritize 

safety in the urban core is not available. This report synthesizes the existing body of available knowledge on 

applying the Safe System Approach in the urban core into a usable form for practitioners, including providing key 

illustrative examples in the form of domestic and international case studies. The goal of this informational report 

is to help raise awareness, build support, and create pathways for policies and processes that support widespread 

deployment of the Safe System Approach in the urban core. 

3

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Traffic Fatality Trends in Urban Areas in the 

United States

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS), traffic fatality rates (measured by fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled) have generally declined 

over the past 30 years until 2010, when they stalled or increased, including a 21-percent increase from 2019 to 

2020, as shown in Figure 1. From 2019 to 2020, roadway fatalities in urban areas in particular increased by 8.5 

percent for a total of 21,650 deaths on urban roadways in 2020.

Source: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2022a.

Figure 1. Chart. Roadway fatality trends compared yearly from 1975 to 2020 

per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. 

It is important to note that just looking at traffic fatality rates does not explain safety conditions; analyzing a 

breakdown of the frequency of fatalities by area type, road user type, infrastructure features, demographic 

characteristics, and other factors is important in implementing the Safe System Approach, described below in 

further detail. In the United States, the number of roadway fatalities in urban areas has exceeded rural areas since 

2016. Additionally, urban roadway fatalities have steadily increased over time, from 14,575 persons killed in urban 

areas in 2011 to 21,650 persons killed in urban areas in 2020; an increase of 48 percent (National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration 2022b). In 2020, an average of 59 persons were killed daily on roads in urban areas in the 

United States. 

A vulnerable road user is generally defined as a person “unprotected by an outside shield, as they sustain a 

greater risk of injury in any collision with a vehicle and are therefore highly in need of protection against such 

collisions” (European Conference of Ministers of Transport 2000). For the Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP), a vulnerable road user is more narrowly defined as a non-motorist with a FARS person attribute code 

of: “(5) Pedestrian, (6) Bicyclist, (7) Other Cyclist, and (8) Person on Personal Conveyance” or a pedestrian or a 

pedalcyclist as defined in the ANSI D16.1-2007 (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15); 23 CFR 490.205; American National Standards 

Institute 2007). This report generally considers people walking, biking, and rolling to be vulnerable road users. 
4

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The comparison of traffic fatality composition by person type in the United States over the last decade shows

an increase in the proportion of vulnerable road user fatalities. In 2011, the proportion of overall traffic fatalities

involving pedestrians, pedalcyclists, and other nonoccupants was 16 percent, increasing to 20 percent in 2020

(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2022b). The potential for conflicts and crashes increases in urban

areas due to the increased number of road users—including vulnerable road users—and the overall amount of

activity. According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the rate of fatalities per 100 million miles

traveled in urban areas was 0.86 in 2019 compared to 1.66 in rural areas for all road users; however, more than 70

percent of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities occurred in urban areas. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

2021). 
5

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Safe System Approach

The Safe System Approach is human-centered. It is founded on the ethical imperative that road fatalities and 

serious injuries must be eliminated, that humans make mistakes, and that humans have limited ability to 

withstand kinetic energy forces due to crashes. The adoption of the Safe System Approach by the transportation 

community represents a shift away from a reactive traditional safety approach toward the understanding that 

road fatalities and serious injuries result not only from human behavior, but also from the transportation system 

itself. The Safe System Approach seeks safety through the use of vehicle, human, and roadway design and 

operational changes rather than relying primarily on human behavior for safety. 

The Safe System Approach is a drastic shift towards ensuring safety and should be proactively incorporated in all 

decisions across the built environment and the way we move. 

In a Safe System Approach, the transportation system is designed and managed to prevent fatal and serious 

injury crashes from happening and to minimize the harm caused to those involved should crashes occur. The 

basis of the Safe System Approach is formed by the six principles illustrated in Figure 2. 

 Source: FHWA2020b.

Figure 2. Graphic. The principles of the Safe System Approach. 

The Safe System Approach minimizes severe crash risk through the strengthening of all five elements: safe road 

users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care, as shown in Figure 3. When these elements are 

incorporated in all decision-making processes, from policy to design decisions, roadway systems become safer for 

all users. 

Death/Serious Injury

is Unacceptable

While no crashes are desirable, the 

Safe System approach prioritizes 

crashes that result in death and 

serious injuries, since no one should 

experience either when using the 

transportation system.

SAFE SYSTEM PRINCIPLES

Responsibility 

is Shared

All stakeholders (transportation 

system users and managers, vehicle 

manufacturers, etc.) must ensure 

that crashes don’t lead to fatal or 

serious injuries.

Safety is 

Proactive

Proactive tools should be used to 

identify and mitigate latent risks in 

the transportation system, rather 

than waiting for crashes to occur 

and reacting afterwards.

Redundancy

is Crucial

Reducing risks requires that all 

parts of the transportation system 

are strengthened, so that if one 

part fails, the other parts still 

protect people.

Humans 

Make Mistakes

People will inevitably make mistakes 

that can lead to crashes, but the 

transportation system can be designed 

and operated to accommodate human 

mistakes and injury tolerances and 

avoid death and serious injuries.

Humans Are 

Vulnerable

People have limits for tolerating crash 

forces before death and serious 

injury occurs; therefore, it is critical to 

design and operate a transportation 

system that is human-centric and 

accommodates human vulnerabilities.
6

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: FHWA 2020b.

Figure 3. Graphic. The Safe System Approach elements.

The Safe System Approach framework illustrated in Figure 4 provides a framework for applying the Safe System 

Approach with a focus on the most relevant elements—safe roads and safe speeds—through roadway policy, 

design, operations, and maintenance decisions across the transportation system. It addresses two of the six Safe 

System Approach principles: to anticipate human error and to accommodate human injury tolerances. 

Anticipating human error includes separating users in space and time, increasing attentiveness and awareness, 

and reducing impairment in a proactive and redundant way. Accommodating human injury tolerances includes 

reducing speed and impact forces by considering kinetic energy impacts of all road users. The decisions for 

prioritizing safety using the Safe System Approach should always be weighted so that if a crash occurs, it does not 

result in a fatal or serious injury (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2019).

Source: FHWA n.d.

Figure 4. Graphic. The Safe System Approach Framework. 

SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS

Making a commitment to zero deaths means addressing every aspect of crash risks through the five elements 

of a Safe System, shown below. These layers of protection and shared responsibility promote a holistic approach 

to safety across the entire transportation system. The key focus of the Safe System approach is to reduce death 

and serious injuries through design that accommodates human mistakes and injury tolerances.

Safe Road

Users

The Safe System 

approach addresses 

the safety of all road 

users, including 

those who walk, 

bike, drive, ride 

transit, and travel by 

other modes. 

Safer

Vehicles

Vehicles are 

designed and 

regulated to 

minimize the 

occurrence and 

severity of collisions 

using safety 

measures that 

incorporate the 

latest technology.

Safe

Speeds

Humans are unlikely 

to survive highspeed crashes. 

Reducing speeds 

can accommodate 

human injury 

tolerances in three 

ways: reducing 

impact forces, 

providing additional 

time for drivers to 

stop, and improving 

visibility.

Safe

Roads

Designing to 

accommodate human 

mistakes and injury 

tolerances can greatly 

reduce the severity of 

crashes that do occur. 

Examples include 

physically separating 

people traveling at 

different speeds, 

providing dedicated 

times for different 

users to move through 

a space, and alerting 

users to hazards and 

other road users.

Post-Crash

Care

When a person 

is injured in a 

collision, they rely 

on emergency 

first responders to 

quickly locate them, 

stabilize their injury, 

and transport them 

to medical facilities. 

Post-crash care also 

includes forensic 

analysis at the crash 

site, traffic incident 

management, and 

other activities.
7

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Safe System Approach has interconnections with concepts such as context sensitive design solutions, 

Complete Streets, and self-enforcing/self-explaining roads. FHWA’s report Moving to a Complete Streets Design 

Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities and Challenges states: “The first core principle of context-sensitive 

design is to ensure that the project provides safety for all users” (Federal Highway Administration 2022e).

CONTEXT SENSITIVE DESIGN

Context sensitive design is a collaborative, interdisciplinary decision-making process and design approach that 

involves all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting. According to FHWA 

(2018), context sensitive design ensures the following:

• Safety for all users

• Use of a shared stakeholder vision as a basis for decisions and for solving problems that may arise

• Expectations of both designers and stakeholders are met or exceeded, thereby adding lasting value to the

community, the environment, and the transportation system

• Effective and efficient use of resources

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) defines 

Complete Streets standards or policies as those which “ensure the safe and adequate accommodation of all 

users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, children, 

older individuals, individuals with disabilities, motorists, and freight vehicles.” (Pub. L. No. 117-58, § 11206(a)). 

Additionally: 

A Complete Streets Design Model prioritizes safety, comfort, and connectivity for all users of the 

roadway, including but not limited to pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders of all ages and 

abilities. In general, this design model includes careful consideration of measures to set and design 

for appropriate speeds; separation of various users in time and space; improvement of connectivity 

and access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders, including for people with disabilities; and 

implementation of safety countermeasures. Use of the design model is determined by context. FHWA 

recommends the application of a complete streets design model on roadways where adjacent land 

use suggests that trips could be served by varied modes, and to achieve complete travel networks for 

various types of road users. (Federal Highway Administration 2022f) 

SELF-ENFORCING OR SELF-EXPLAINING ROADS

Self-enforcing or self-explaining roads are those roadways designed with features to indicate to drivers what the 

safe and appropriate operating speed is for the safety of all road users (Federal Highway Administration 2018b). 

An operating speed that is safe and appropriate for the conditions of a given road may also be called a target 

speed. Target speed is defined as the highest operating speed at which vehicles should ideally operate on a 

roadway in a specific context (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2018).

Context sensitive design, Complete Streets, and self-enforcing or self-explaining roads are example concepts for 

implementing the safe roads element of the Safe System Approach.
8

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

KINETIC ENERGY FORCES AND THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH

Kinetic energy forces cause injury to the human body in the event of a crash. When kinetic energy forces exceed 

tolerable thresholds, a fatal or serious injury occurs. With the goal of zero traffic deaths in mind, the Safe System 

Approach framework seeks to accommodate human injury tolerances by reducing speeds and impact angles. 

This involves evaluating how to design roadways through an injury minimization perspective. However, injury 

minimization and reducing kinetic energy forces must be done in a way that considers all road users, especially 

those without the protection provided by a vehicle. According to the 2011 study on Impact Speed and a 

Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death, the “average risk of death for a pedestrian reaches 10% at an impact 

speed of 23 mph, 25 percent at 32 mph, 50 percent at 42 mph, 75 percent at 50 mph, and 90 percent at 58 mph,” 

and the difference between a serious injury to and fatality of a pedestrian is only about 10 miles per hour (AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety 2011). This relationship is illustrated graphically in Figure 5. 

Source: FHWA 2023 based on data from AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 2011.

Figure 5. Graphic. Risk of death based on vehicle speeds. 

SUCCESS WITH THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH INTERNATIONALLY

The Permanent International Association of Road Congresses (PIARC) identifies the Safe System Approach as “the 

most effective way of considering and responding to fatal and serious casualty crash risks on a network” (World 

Road Association 2019).

According to the Sustainable and Safe report from the World Resources Institute (WRI), countries that have applied 

the Safe System Approach have achieved both the lowest rates of fatalities per 100,000 inhabitants and the 

greatest reduction in fatality rates over the past 20 years (World Resources Institute 2018). From 1994 to 2015, 

these countries experienced a reduction in road fatalities between 50 percent and 70 percent, as shown in 

Figure 6. As previously discussed, traffic fatality rates in the United States have generally declined over the past 30 

years until 2010 when they stalled or increased.

Hit by a vehicle 

traveling at

10% risk of death 50% risk of death 90% risk of death

Hit by a vehicle 

traveling at

Hit by a vehicle 

traveling at
9

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: FHWA 2023 based on data from WRI 2015.

Figure 6. Graphic. Statistics on the Safe System Approach in Sweden, the Netherlands, Australia, 

and New Zealand. 

The Safe System Approach originated in the 1990s in Sweden as Vision Zero and in the Netherlands as 

Sustainable Safety. Both models had common foundations based on ensuring safety for all road users and the 

need for transportation professionals to design the system to reduce the risk of fatal and serious injury crashes 

(Bicycle Dutch 2017). This model required a systemic and radical shift in these countries away from car-oriented 

development towards human-centered design and took nearly a decade to achieve the reductions. The shift 

included understanding how people were moving and where people were going to create a safer system. The 

graphic shown in Figure 7 outlines how the Safe System Approach can incrementally improve safety and also 

provide environmental and health benefits.

Source: WRI 2015.

Figure 7. Graphic. Improving safety using the Safe System Approach also improves the entire system. 

Vision Zero

Reductions in fatalities 

1994-2015

Reductions in fatalities 

1994-2015

Reductions in fatalities 

1994-2015

Reductions in fatalities 

1994-2015

Sustainable Safety Safe System Safer Journeys
10

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The international implementations of the Safe System Approach or Sustainable Safety have taken a critical look at 

the impacts of the built environment and road designs on crashes, rather than focusing solely on human behavior 

(World Resources Institute 2018). In Utrecht, Netherlands, city planning policies were changed in the early 1990s 

along with systemic implementation of Sustainable Safety. These institutionalized policies now require separated 

bicycle facilities for connecting key destinations, removal of parking in the center of the city, and limiting trips 

through the city center. Figure 8 is an image of the transformation in Utrecht, Netherlands, once Sustainable 

Safety was applied across the network.

Source: FHWA 2017.

Figure 8. Image. Before and after photos of Catharijnesingel in Utrecht, Netherlands between 2000 and 2018. 

Australia and New Zealand have also applied the Safe System Approach nationally and seen reductions in 

roadway fatalities, through the Safe System and Safer Journeys program respectively (World Resources Institute 

2018). All four leading countries in roadway safety that have committed to systemically applying the Safe System 

Approach have looked at their nationwide leading crash contributing factors and have implemented new policies 

and guidance to support transportation professionals prioritizing safety. For example, Austroads, a collective 

of Australian and New Zealand transportation agencies, has created a Guide to Road Safety that provides 

recommendations on how to apply the Safe System Approach in application (Austroads 2022). 

Australia also has an Australian Road Assessment Program (AusRAP) that applies the Safe System Approach 

through Safer Roads Investment Plans (SRIPs) to systematically apply effective countermeasures that will 

contribute toward a reduction in the number of people being killed or seriously injured on Australia’s national 

highways that operate at 90 km/h (56 mph) or greater. The AusRAP ratings are based on the International Road 

Assessment Program (iRAP) methodology. Ratings were completed and published on all Australian national 

highways and the lowest 1-star rated roadway segments are prioritized for increased safety improvements 

(Australian Automobile Association (AAA) 2013). The iRAP methodology is used by more than 100 countries 

worldwide to inspect high-risk roads and develop star ratings, risk maps, and SRIPs (International Road Assessment 

Programme n.d.). The United States also has a United States Road Assessment Program (usRAP) modeled after 

iRAP methods that utilizes proactive risk assessment, mapping, readily available data, and reliable cost-benefit 

considerations to help agencies of all sizes develop SRIPs (United States Road Assessment Program n.d.).
11

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

SHIFTING FROM TRADITIONAL SAFETY TO THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH

The Safe System Approach offers a lens through which transportation professionals can think about increasing 

safety in a way that prevents fatalities and serious injuries. This is a shift from traditional roadway safety thinking. 

The Safe System Approach prioritizes safety in transportation decision making and applies an evidence-based 

method for dedicating resources to systemic safety improvements for all road users. FHWA builds on zero deaths 

goals by stating that zero is the goal, and the Safe System Approach is how we get there (Federal Highway 

Administration 2020). Community-based Vision Zero goals were adopted for the first time in the United States 

by the city of Chicago in 2012, and now more than 50 agencies are setting the goal of reducing and ultimately 

eliminating traffic deaths (Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center n.d.). The Washington State Department of 

Transportation was one of the first agencies to recognize and implement the Safe System Approach, and now 

agencies all over the United States are beginning to apply it (Washington State Department of Transportation 2019). 

Adopting the principles, elements, and framework of the Safe System Approach is a first step in working toward 

an ambitious long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries. Both the Safe System Approach and a 

long-term goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries are included in U.S. DOT’s National Roadway Safety 

Strategy in January 2022 (United States Department of Transportation 2022). Figure 9 shows how to shift from 

traditional road safety practices to the Safe System Approach. 

Source: FHWA 2020b.

Figure 9. Graphic. Shift from traditional safety toward the Safe System Approach. 

The Safe System Approach proactively identifies safety risks and takes a systemic approach to lowering risk, and 

eventually eliminating risk, with a goal of preventing future fatal and serious injury crashes. This requires a shift 

from improving human behavior to proactively designing roadways in urban areas that prevent fatal and serious 

injuries should a crash occur. Shared responsibility and ensuring redundancy in the system are key to applying the 

Safe System Approach in an urban area. 

According to U.S. DOT’s National Roadway Safety Strategy, “to achieve zero roadway fatalities and a transportation 

system that is safe for all users, all actors in our transportation system must acknowledge and address historic 

and ongoing inequities” (United States Department of Transportation 2022). Underserved populations are 

disproportionately affected by roadway crashes. For example, in the city of Minneapolis, Minnesota, the highest 

number of crashes occurs in the lowest income neighborhoods—identified as Areas of Concentrated Poverty 

(ACPs), census tracts where 40 percent or more of the residents have family or individual incomes that are less 

than 185 percent of the Federal poverty threshold.
12

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Therefore, any application of the Safe System Approach should consider both safety and equity to ensure 

the system is safe for everyone, and that may include dedicating more resources toward improving safety in 

neighborhoods that have been marginalized and safety risk is higher (City of Minneapolis n.d.).

The BIL provides increased Federal funding for Complete Streets (see BIL § 11206) and the safety of vulnerable 

road users (see BIL § 11111), providing an unprecedented ability to apply the Safe System Approach—especially in 

urban cores across the country. Discretionary programs, like the Safe Streets and Roads for All Discretionary Grant 

Program, provide additional conduits for applying the Safe System Approach principles and framework directly to 

urban areas and using methods outlined later in this report.
13

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Urban Core Context

According to the nonregulatory AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, the urban 

core context is defined as:

Areas of the highest density, with mixed land uses within and among predominantly high-rise 

structures, and with small building setbacks. The urban core context is found predominantly in the 

central business districts and adjoining portions of major metropolitan areas. On-street parking is 

often more limited and time restricted than in the urban context. Substantial parking is in multi-level 

structures attached to or integrated with other structures. The area is accessible to automobiles, 

commercial delivery vehicles, and public transit. Sidewalks are present nearly continuously, with 

pedestrian plazas and multilevel pedestrian bridges connecting commercial and parking structures 

in some locations. Transit corridors, including bus and rail transit, are typically common and major 

transit terminals may be present. Some government services are available, while other commercial 

uses predominate, including financial and legal services. Structures may have multiple uses and 

setbacks are not as generous as in the surrounding urban area. Residences are often apartments 

or condominiums. Driver speed expectations are low, and pedestrian and bicycle flows are high. 

(American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2018)

The urban core typically has the greatest density of people in a given area with a mix of land uses in a block. It is 

often characterized by a strong street grid made up of mostly local roads that feed back to collectors and urban 

arterials that often bisect the urban core. This informational report predominately focuses on prioritizing safety 

on local roads and urban arterials in the densest parts of a community; however, all functional road classifications 

sometimes impact urban areas in communities depending on the way the community was developed and how 

transportation systems were integrated. 

Local roads and collectors are usually the most common by mileage, but urban arterials are often the most 

common road type for fatalities and serious injuries. Urban arterials, and in some cases highways, running 

through cities can cause major safety issues, including higher speeds and bisecting and cutting off key parts of an 

urban area from one another (Schwartz 2015).

According to the 2015 WRI report Cities Safer by Design: Urban Design Recommendations for Healthier Cities, Fewer 

Traffic Fatalities, creating a safer environment can include connected and compact urban design, safer vehicle 

speeds, designing and operating arterials for the safety of all road users, and encouraging walking, rolling, and 

taking transit by considering block size, street connectivity, street widths, access to destinations, and population 

density (World Resources Institute 2015). Additionally, prioritization of vulnerable road users in urban areas can be 

shown to increase the safety of all road users across the system (United Kingdom Department of Transport 2022).
14

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

SUSTAINABLE SAFETY

Prior to the expansion of context zones by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation 

Officials (AASHTO), cities in the United States and internationally were using various schemes to prioritize safety 

of vulnerable road users in high-density/high-activity areas. Sustainable Safety, founded in the Netherlands in 

1997, is an example of a method that incorporated a few Safe System Approach principles. Sustainable Safety 

considers three elements: the functionality of roads, predicting traffic flows, and the balance of volume and speed 

(Harirchian, Esmaeili and Kermanshahi 2018). Under the concept of Sustainable Safety, the National Association of 

City Transportation Officials (NACTO) identified the following 10 components to Sustainable Safety in the Global 

Streets Design Guide (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2016):

1. Streets for everyone (Inclusive Design for children, seniors, and people with disabilities)

2. Streets are multidimensional spaces (People experience with all their senses)

3. Streets for safety (Design to be safe and comfortable for all users)

4. Streets for health (Support healthy environments and lifestyle choices)

5. Streets are public spaces (A place for cultural expression, social interaction, and public demonstration)

6. Streets as ecosystems (Improve the biodiversity and quality of urban ecosystems)

7. Streets for context (Support current and planned contexts and multiple scales)

8. Streets are multimodal (Design for a range of mobility choices)

9. Great streets, Great values (To be an economic asset as well as a functional element)

10. Streets can change (Allowing people to experience the streets differently)

MOVEMENT AND PLACE FRAMEWORK

Another method that incorporates Safe System Approach elements and prioritizes safety of all road users in 

urban areas began in Australia and is known as Movement and Place. The Movement and Place framework is 

similar to context sensitive design and solutions in the United States but provides more specific information on 

the safety considerations in roadway and land use. The functions of public rights-of-ways include facilitating the 

movement of people and goods on roadways or being places for people to gather on sidewalks and plazas. The 

Movement and Place method of the Safe System Approach effectively prioritizes safety over movement based 

on the hierarchy of the road type and road users. It prioritizes reducing potential conflicts and facilitates safe and 

timely movement of all people, not just cars. The Movement and Place framework has been adapted to context 

and functional road types in the United States, as shown in Figure 10.
15

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

 Source: FHWA.

Figure 10. Graphic. Movement and Place Framework. 

In the case of urban arterials, referred to as movement corridors in the Movement and Place framework, applying 

the Safe System Approach for separating uses in space may require installation of above- or below-grade facilities 

to ensure the safety of vulnerable road users who may need to cross a road with higher speeds and volumes. This 

type of separation in space also ensures that portions of urban areas are not disconnected from each other.

The Road Cross-section Design for Road Stereotypes (including Network Safety Plans) and a Safe System from 

Austroads provides a framework to apply the Movement and Place method as well as other applicable practices 

using the Safe System Approach in the United States (Aumann et al. 2020). Additional information on the 

Movement and Place framework can be found through the government of New South Wales, Australia by visiting: 

https://www.transport.nsw.gov.au/industry/nsw-movement-and-place-framework. 

Similarly, the Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning book includes a chapter entitled “Urban 

form and road safety: Public and active transport enable high levels of road safety,” which highlights the 5Ds 

method to the Safe System Approach to road safety (Schepers, Lovegrove, and Helbich 2019). The 5Ds are density, 

diversity, design, distance to transit, and destination accessibility. The authors conclude that: 
16

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Increased volumes of walking and cycling are associated with reduced vehicular operating speeds 

as driver awareness of pedestrians and cyclists increases. Increased active transport volumes are also 

likely to increase public support for protected neighbourhood cores, area-wide traffic calming, and 

comprehensive pedestrian and cycling networks. Moreover, dense and diverse land uses enable 

more community finances to be invested in (sustainably) safer transport systems such as metro 

and rail. Achieving higher levels of road safety and public health requires a ‘bottom-up’ design 

process of development patterns that focus on the human-scale needs of pedestrians and cyclists 

first, supported with convenient, high-quality public transport, services, and parks. Only in the last 

stages should motor traffic be carefully designed for, and then only as a “guest” to this otherwise 

sustainability-oriented community. 

It should be noted that many countries that applied a systemic approach to safety through the Safe System 

Approach also made significant shifts in investments for pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to separate road 

users in space and time across the system, increase access using active modes, and minimize dependency on 

vehicle trips.

SAFETY OF VULNERABLE ROAD USERS AS A PRIORITY IN THE 

UNITED STATES

Some agencies in the United States have also applied similar safety prioritizations for vulnerable road users, called 

modal hierarchy. For example, the city of Bellingham, Washington, has a policy to “[d]esign multimodal 

transportation improvements on existing and new streets with the safety and mobility needs of all user groups 

considered and with priority emphasis placed on the most vulnerable user groups” and uses the modal hierarchy 

chart shown in Figure 11 for prioritizing road user safety. 

Source: City of Bellingham, Washington, 2016.

Figure 11. Graphic. Modal roadway safety hierarchy based on vulnerability to safety risk. 
17

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Safe System Approach and the Urban Core 

Considerations

The principles and elements of the Safe System Approach are the same for every context; however, the activity 

level, road user types, and conflicts are specific to each context. The Safe System Approach in the urban core 

should consider a mix of vehicle types, mixed-use development, and diverse road users. Urban core areas have 

the highest volume of activity, and the patterns of activity are complex. Road users in the urban core include 

transit users, pedestrians, bicyclists, micromobility users, drivers of commercial and service vehicles, drivers 

of personal vehicles, and ride share services. Due to the dense development, high level of road conflicts, and 

presence of vulnerable users, the focus when applying the Safe System Approach in the urban core should be 

to lower the kinetic energy of crash impacts and separate users in time and space. Due to the complexity of the 

urban core, implementing the Safe System Approach can inform processes for implementing the approach in 

other contexts.

POTENTIAL CONCERNS

One of the potential concerns practitioners may face when implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban 

core is roadway ownership. Most roads in the urban core roads are owned and maintained by cities; however, 

some urban core roads may be part of the State highway system. To implement projects along roads that are part 

of the State highway system, a city can apply for roadway relinquishment, which is typically a multi-year process 

that usually involves State legislative approval. More commonly, a city coordinates with State DOTs, which can 

share and provide safety funds (e.g., HSIP) to implement project improvements. Collaboration among State and 

local agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), traffic safety advocates, partners, and stakeholders is 

needed to recognize the implications of policy making in all areas of the transportation system and to implement 

the Safe System Approach. As an example, the Vision Zero efforts in the city of Fremont, California, called for 

redesigning high-speed streets in the urban core; however, State Route 84 was owned by the State and was not 

aligned to the city of Fremont’s vision. Following a multi-year process, Fremont secured relinquishment of the 

section of State Route 84 in the urban core, which is planned to be redesigned as part of a Complete Streets 

project (City of Fremont 2021). A full Fremont case study is included in the appendix. 

States, local jurisdictions, MPOs, and other safety partners can also coordinate to maximize the reach of safety 

efforts and programs to the local communities in the urban core. As an example, the Washington Traffic Safety 

Commission (WTSC) funds and supports a statewide network of 17 Target Zero Managers (TZMs) who are 

involved in the coordination and fiscal management of WTSC’s grant-funded projects. TZMs guide local task 

forces composed of engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical services (EMS) experts, as 

well as other community agencies and organizations with an interest in traffic safety. The TZMs and task forces 

coordinate local traffic safety efforts and resources by tracking data, trends, and issues in their area. They develop 

and provide a variety of traffic safety programs, services, and public outreach throughout their communities by 

working with local partners. The engagement of TZMs and local jurisdictions resulted in a reduction of injury 

crashes in the urban core in Seattle and Bellevue (State of Washington 2019).
18

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Right-of-way acquisition and mobilization costs are also a deterrent for implementing many infrastructure 

projects in dense urban areas. This means that implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban core may 

need to focus on effectively redesigning facilities within the existing right-of-way by applying roadway 

reconfigurations, such as converting vehicular travel lanes into bike lanes. For the most part, improvements based 

on the Safe System Approach elements and principles cost significantly less than conventional transportation 

projects (Smart Growth America 2015). Figure 12 shows the comparison of typical construction costs per mile of 

Complete Streets projects and urban arterial projects. Most Complete Streets improvements cost less than an 

urban arterial, with a few projects showing no additional cost to the jurisdiction. The projects that cost “zero 

dollars” are examples of how pedestrian and bicycle improvements can be included in existing projects, such as 

incorporating bike lanes into existing resurfacing projects by reducing vehicular travel lane widths.

Source: Smart Growth America 2015. 

Figure 12. Graph. Cost per mile to build Complete Streets projects vs. an average arterial road.

Reducing speed limits and removing vehicular lanes to create roadway separation for pedestrians and bicyclists 

may cause concerns regarding congestion, travel time, and increased intersection delay. However, studies have 

found that average road speeds in urban settings are more determined by the frequency of intersections than 

speed limits (Sharpin, et al. 2017) and that a lower speed limit only adds a few seconds of travel time between 

intersections (Ville de Grenoble 2015). Further, there is evidence that travel speeds and traffic volumes typically 

remain steady with the addition of protected bicycle lanes along corridors (New York City Department of 

Transportation 2014).
19

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Business owners are typically concerned that the reduction of speeds, reduction of automobile travel lanes, and 

reduction of the number of parking spaces may reduce automobile traffic and, consequently, reduce business 

visits. However, studies show that non-motorized users are competitive consumers as they visit the neighborhood 

the most often and account for the majority of retail dollars spent in the urban core area (Clifton et al. 2013; 

Transportation Alternatives 2012). Further, there is evidence that removing on-street parking and travel lanes may 

not hurt businesses. After the removal of parking spaces for installation of a bicycle climbing lane, the business 

district at NE 65th Street and Latona Avenue NE in Seattle experienced an increase in sales (Rowe 2013). Similarly, 

after a Road Diet (conversion from four to two travel lanes and addition of bike lanes in both directions) was 

implemented along Magnolia Street in Fort Worth, restaurant revenues increased (Blue 2016).

Overall, Safe System Approach improvements can make streets more desirable for all road users and lead 

to improved quality of life and increased economic development (Smart Growth America 2015). Although 

challenges and concerns may arise following the implementation of the Safe System Approach in the urban core, 

educating the public on the need to eliminate road fatalities and serious injuries is key, especially regarding the 

safety of vulnerable road users.

PRIORITIZING SAFETY AND SAFE MOBILITY

In the urban core, going to work, stores, doctors, houses of worship, school, or social functions does not 

necessarily mean getting into a car. A mobile society also implies transportation choices, so that people of all ages 

and abilities have access to travel mode options. Therefore, mobility should not be defined by how many vehicle 

miles are traveled or solely measured in terms of travel times, level of traffic congestion, or duration of congestion. 

Rather, mobility also can be measured in terms of the availability of travel choices, which may include different 

routes or modes of travel, such as transit, bicycling, and walking (Federal Highway Administration 2003).

Practitioners can implement the Safe System Approach in the urban core by shifting the focus to providing 

safe mobility for all road users, especially the most vulnerable. The design of Safe System roads accommodates 

predictable human limitations and behavior so that human mistakes do not lead to death or serious injury. Roads 

should be designed to limit crash forces to survivable levels. Safe System project investments should be applied 

equitably, proactively, and systemically.

Road safety is inextricably linked to mobility, access, equity, and many other transportation values and objectives. 

Practitioners should find a balance on how to provide multiple mobility options while ensuring safety for users 

of every transportation option. Safe System Approach projects, such as on-street bicycle lanes, off-street trails, 

and improved sidewalk connectivity, may not measurably decrease congestion levels, but they provide safe 

alternatives to driving and can provide access to non-drivers, including children, to reach employment, schools, 

parks, libraries, and other facilities. Practitioners should prioritize safety and safe mobility for all users, even if that 

results in a decrease in vehicle throughput (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2016).

IMPORTANCE OF EQUITY AND SAFETY IN THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH

Along with safety, equity should be a key consideration in every transportation decision that is made. Executive 

Order 13985 defines equity as “consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals” (The 

White House 2021). Equity also includes ensuring that all segments of populations are heard in the community 

engagement process. 
20

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

In the urban core, historical transportation and land use decisions such as redlining, urban renewal, and the 

Interstate Highway Act, have led to separation and marginalization of segments of populations that still persist 

today. These inequitable decisions led to segregated urban areas that have resulted in concerning safety and 

equity statistics. For example, the 2022 Dangerous by Design report notes arterials in low-income communities 

of color have a higher frequency of pedestrian fatalities (Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets 

Coalition 2022). The Governors Highway Safety Association report An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and 

Ethnicity (2021) notes those living in large central metropolitan areas had the highest pedestrian death rates 

according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Vital Statistics System from 2001-2010. From 

the same report and data, American Indian/Alaskan Native populations and Hispanic and Black males had the 

highest pedestrian death rates. Implementing the Safe System Approach in the urban core should include ways to 

correct the equity disparities and unsafe road conditions of the past. U.S. DOT’s implementation of the Justice40 

initiative provides equity data sources such as the Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts mapping tool and 

data from the United States Census Bureau American Community Survey that are important to identify underserved 

populations and areas in the urban core (Federal Highway Administration 2022).

Incorporating equity into safety analysis means working with individuals in underserved communities to 

accomplish the following:

• Collect and analyze data to identify communities experiencing disparities in roadway fatalities and serious

injuries.

• Engage community representatives to understand their transportation safety needs and build trust.

• Implement improvements in safety planning, funding, design, operations, and maintenance processes to

eliminate disparities in traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

• Evaluate impacts by monitoring outcomes and working to continuously improve outcomes with

communities.
21

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

How Key Existing Resources Relate to the Safe 

System Approach in the Urban Core

Because the Safe System Approach remains a relatively new concept in the United States, use of the Safe System 

Approach is not yet well represented in key foundational references that are used daily by transportation 

professionals. However, many of the basic building blocks of the Safe System Approach are included in these 

references as summarized below: 

FHWA PROVEN SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES

FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures (PSCs) initiative is a set of countermeasures and strategies effective 

in reducing roadway fatalities and serious injuries on highways (Federal Highway Administration 2021). 

Transportation agencies are strongly encouraged to consider widespread implementation of PSCs to accelerate 

the achievement of local, State, and national safety goals. Currently there are 28 countermeasures identified as 

PSCs, as shown in Figure 13.

The Proven Safety Countermeasure 

Selection Tool indicates that 26 of the 

28 countermeasures, including all in 

the speed management, intersections, 

pedestrian/bicycles, and crosscutting 

categories, are applicable to urban areas. 

This initiative generally supports the 

Safe System Approach, but application 

of these countermeasures in the urban 

core context is not always specifically 

described. However, many of the other 

countermeasures are noted as relevant 

in the urban context as well as more 

broadly. One mention of the urban core 

is included within the countermeasure 

related to Appropriate Speed Limits for 

All Road Users; specifically, “the use of 20 

mph speed zones or speed limits in urban 

core areas where vulnerable users share 

the road environment with motorists may 

result in further safety benefits” (Federal 

Highway Administration 2021). 

Source: FHWA 2021b. 

Figure 13. Graphic. Proven Safety Countermeasure Summary. 
22

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

FHWA SAFE TRANSPORTATION FOR EVERY PEDESTRIAN (STEP)

The FHWA STEP program provides assistance on how to conduct systemic safety analyses and apply relevant 

countermeasures for increased pedestrian safety (Federal Highway Administration 2022a). Many of these 

countermeasures apply in an urban core, where large numbers of pedestrians are often present, and thus their 

safety needs to be prioritized. The STEP program was included in FHWA’s Every Day Counts (EDC) program from 

2017–2020 as a proven but underutilized innovation. The STEP program selection process applies the Safe System 

Approach via the steps outlined in Figure 14.

Source: FHWA. n.d.(e)

Figure 14. Graphic. STEP Selection Process. 

FHWA COMPLETE STREETS INITIATIVE

FHWA’s Complete Streets initiative is an implementation strategy of the Safe System Approach focused on Safe 

Roads and Safe Speeds, which seeks to improve safety and access for all road users. In March 2022, FHWA released 

a report to Congress entitled Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities 

and Challenges (Federal Highway Administration 2022e). This report details FHWA’s commitment to advance 

widespread implementation of the Complete Streets design model to help improve safety and accessibility for all 

users and identifies five overarching opportunity areas that will inform FHWA as it moves ahead with its efforts 

to increase the proportion of federally funded transportation projects that are routinely planned, designed, 

built, and operated as Complete Streets (Federal Highway Administration 2022e). More information on the FHWA 

Complete Streets is available at https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets.

Collect 

pedestrian crash 

and safety data

Review existing 

highway safety 

plans

Initiate a 

pedestrian safety 

action plan

Pedestrian safety 

policy analysis

Review Table 1

 (roadway features)

Inventory roadway 

characteristics 

and pedestrian 

crossings

MUTCD Guidance

Create crash 

diagrams

Identify 

implementation 

opportunities

Request and 

receive public 

input

Review Table 2 

(safety issues)

Conduct crash 

cluster analysis

AASHTO and State 

Guidance

Identify crash 

factors

Consider funding 

options

Conduct a 

walkability audit

Review Table 3 

(implementation 

and operations 

considerations)

Conduct systemic 

analysis

Local and Other 

Guidance

Conduct an RSA

Construct 

improvement

Monitor results of 

implementation

Click a topic to learn more

1 COLLECT DATA AND ENGAGE THE PUBLIC

4 SELECT COUNTERMEASURES

2 INVENTORY CONDITIONS AND PRIORITIZE LOCATIONS

5 CONSULT DESIGN AND INSTALLATION RESOURCES

3 ANALYZE CRASH TYPES AND SAFETY ISSUES

6 IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES AND MONITOR OUTCOMES
23

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

AASHTO POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS, 

7TH EDITION

The AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition is a nonregulatory manual containing 

current design research and practices for highway and street geometric design (American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 2018).

It provides recommendations to engineers and designers who strive to develop design solutions that meet the 

needs of highway and street users on a project-by-project basis. It describes how geometric design elements 

affect multiple transportation modes and recognizes the relationship between geometric design features and 

traffic operations.

The Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition acknowledges that geometric design traditionally 

considered only two contexts—rural and urban—with supplemental recommendations provided for specific 

locations. This current edition contains a broader set of contexts for geometric design using five contexts: two for 

rural areas and three for urban areas, including the urban core.

Safety is generally used as a design criterion for decision makers to consider or as a rationale for specific design 

elements in the manual. In the manual, safety is mentioned with respect to speed, access control (chapter 2), 

turning radius (chapter 3), cross sectional elements (chapter 4), local and collector roads and street design 

(chapter 5 and 6), intersection design (chapter 9), and grade separation (chapter 10).

The manual acknowledges that trade-offs often need to be made when balancing the needs of all users, but it does 

not contain explicit safety performance relationships that identify the safety impact of these trade-offs. 

HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) is an AASHTO publication and serves as a nonregulatory resource regarding 

incorporating quantitative safety analysis in the highway transportation project planning and development 

processes (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2010). The HSM represented a 

shift from nominal safety, which assumes that the application of a design standard provides safety, to substantive 

safety, which relies on scientific findings for determining safety performance that takes into consideration facility 

type, traffic volumes, and crash history. Although not focused on the Safe System Approach, the HSM introduced 

a predictive safety methodology that allows practitioners to assess the safety performance of each roadway 

segment and intersection based on specific characteristics, such as lane width, presence of turn lanes, intersection 

skewness, intersection traffic control, etc. With the predictive methodology in the HSM, it is possible to compare 

different countermeasures and select the alternatives with the best estimated safety performance, which is in line 

with the Safe Roads element of the Safe System Approach. The predictive methodology in the HSM can provide 

practitioners with estimated future safety performance, which helps inform the design of safer facilities before 

crashes occur, in line with the Safe System approach that safety is proactive. In addition to road geometry and 

traffic control, the predictive methodology supports the use of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) that can be used 

by practitioners to compare scenarios, such as the safety effects of reducing the speed limit on a roadway segment, 

which can bring Safe Speeds into roadway design decisions. 
24

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The HSM is divided into four sections: Part A – Introduction, Human Factors and Fundamentals of Safety, 

Part B - Roadway Safety Management Process, Part C - Predictive Methods, and Part D - Crash Modification 

Factors. The HSM provides safety knowledge and tools to facilitate improved decision making based on 

quantitative information to improve safety performance. The HSM presents tools and methodologies for 

consideration of safety across the range of highway activities: planning, programming, project development, 

construction, operations, and maintenance. The HSM is written for practitioners at all agency levels and across the 

transportation system, including in the urban core. In chapter 17, on Road Networks, it presents CMFs applicable 

to planning, design, operations, education, and enforcement-related decisions that are applied holistically to a 

road network. However, human factors addressed in chapter 2 are focused on driving tasks and do not reference 

walking or biking factors.

Safety Performance Functions (SPFs) are provided for urban arterials. Geometric design and traffic control features 

used to determine whether site-specific conditions vary from the base condition in the SPF include on-street 

parking, driveways, bus stops, right-turn-on-red restrictions, and pedestrian volumes, all of which are relevant to 

the urban core context. Several roadway segment treatments for pedestrians and bicyclists are noted to have the 

potential to change user behavior. Geometric design and traffic control features used to determine whether the 

site-specific conditions vary from the base condition in the SPF include speed category based on actual operating 

speed or posted speed limit.

In its current form, the HSM has limited direct application to the specific urban core context given the definition 

used for urban and the types of treatments that are applicable. However, a new edition of the HSM is currently 

under development, which is anticipated to improve its direct applicability to the urban core context.

NONREGULATORY GUIDES FROM THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CITY 

TRANSPORTATION OFFICIALS (NACTO)

NACTO has also developed specific design information focused on urban areas in the following nonregulatory 

guides that can be viewed through the lens of the Safe System Approach:

• Urban Street Design Guide: This manual focuses on the design of city streets and public spaces and

emphasizes city street design as a unique practice with its own set of design goals, parameters, and tools

(National Association of City Transportation Officials 2013).

• Urban Bikeway Design Guide: This manual seeks to provide cities with state-of-the-practice solutions that

can help create complete streets that are safe and enjoyable for bicyclists (National Association of City

Transportation Officials 2014).

• Don’t Give Up at the Intersection: This report expands on the Urban Bikeway Design Guide by adding detailed

information on intersection design treatments that reduce vehicle-bike and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts.

It covers protected bike intersections, dedicated bike intersections, and minor street crossings as well as

signalization strategies to reduce conflicts and increase comfort and safety (National Association of City

Transportation Officials 2019).

• City Limits: Setting Safe Speeds in Urban Areas: This manual gives practitioners a detailed, context-sensitive

method to set safe speed limits on urban streets (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2020).
25

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

PIARC ROAD SAFETY MANUAL

According to PIARC, the new Road Safety Manual (RSM) will focus on aiding countries, regardless of their stage 

of infrastructure development, in fulfilling their road safety objectives. It will do this in part by leveraging and 

promoting the Safe System approach to managing safety, but these efforts will also draw upon assistance from 

PIARC as well as from other international organizations. The goal of the 2019 update is to add new information, 

best practices, and new case studies (PIARC (World Road Association) 2019). While the RSM is not developed solely 

for the urban core, it could form the basis for how to prioritize safety and implement the Safe System Approach in 

the United States within the urban core and beyond. 

Overall, this manual provides a framework, process, and holistic lens that future design work can follow. The 

following list, excerpted from RSM Section 4.6, provide important perspectives on Safe System Principles (PIARC 

(Word Road Association 2019):

• The combination of infrastructure safety features, vehicle safety features, and travel speed(s) of

crash-involved vehicles determines the impact forces that humans are subjected to in any crash.

These interactions are to be managed to avoid fatal or serious injury outcomes.

• Safety levels are to be the key determinant of sustainable mobility levels. Travel speeds require

management to target levels below those known speed thresholds that deliver fatal or serious injury

crash impact energies (based on the level of vehicle safety and mix) and the nature of protective

infrastructure characteristics.

• A system-wide intervention strategy addressing all crash-phases and all Safe System elements is to be

adopted, which addresses the safety of all road users.

Individual design treatments are not addressed within this manual; rather, references are provided so 

designers can get more information and applications relative to country-specific guidance (PIARC (World Road 

Association) 2019).

27

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Safe System Approach Framework in the 

Urban Core

The complexity of an urban core, which includes a high level of activity and a variety of road users, results in 

safety concerns. Higher volumes, higher speeds, multilane roads, and high potential for conflicts can increase 

the risk for fatalities and severe injuries in an urban core, especially for vulnerable road users. The application of 

the Safe System Approach to address these concerns should focus on the following key framework strategies 

(Road to Zero Coalition n.d.):

• Separation of road users in space and time

• Reduction of crash kinetic energy

• Increased attentiveness and awareness

SEPARATION OF USERS IN SPACE AND TIME

One of the main concerns in the urban core is the vulnerability of non-motorized users, which often requires 

greater separation between pedestrians, bicyclists, and automobiles. In denser urban areas, pedestrian activity 

may also cross contexts or land-use boundaries, necessitating the accommodation of pedestrian traffic through 

a context area to another major area of activity. Therefore, separating road users in space and time in the urban 

core achieves the following purposes.

• Separating users in space: Consists of separating the physical space to provide travelers with a dedicated

part of the right-of-way. Typically, travelers moving at different speeds or different directions are separated

in space to minimize conflicts with other road users.

• Separating users in time: Assumes that users will need to occupy the same physical space on the roadway

but creates a safer environment by separating the users in time by way of traffic control devices to minimize

vehicle conflicts with vulnerable road users.

The resources described below, which include recommendations for levels of separation in time and space on 

roadways in an urban core, focus on vulnerable road users. Higher levels of separation between vehicular traffic 

and vulnerable road users are preferred when possible.

SEPARATION IN SPACE

Bicyclist Separation

Bicycle selection is a context-sensitive decision that involves policy, planning, and project purpose. The desired 

bikeway type and the amount of separation necessary for a bicycle facility is dependent mostly on the following: 

the speed of motorized traffic on the adjacent roadway, the amount of motorized traffic on the adjacent roadway, 

and the amount of bicycle traffic on the facility. In an urban core, higher-speed urban arterials that also serve as a 

regional bicycle connection typically have heavier volumes of bicycle traffic. In this case, bicyclists would benefit 

from a separated facility that would reduce the number of conflicts between vehicles and bicycles. Conversely, at 

a low-speed neighborhood street serving mostly local drivers and bicyclists, bicycles and vehicles may share the 

same space because of the lower probability of conflict and lower speed differences between the two modes. 
28

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Bicycle separation levels are as follows:

• High separation: Physical separation from traffic in the form of physical barrier or lateral buffer. Examples

include buffered bike lane/cycle tracks and multi-use paths.

• Medium separation: Dedicated space adjacent to motorized traffic, such as bike lanes.

• Low/No separation: Joint-use facilities for motorized and non-motorized traffic, such as bicycle sharrows.

Resources that can inform practitioners of how to separate bicyclists in space include the following:

• Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: Presents practitioners with guidelines for

selection of different levels of bicyclist separation in space (Federal Highway Administration 2014). For each

countermeasure, the purpose, considerations, estimated cost, and safety effects are included.

• Bikeway Selection Guide: Provides information on bicyclist separation in space based on traffic volumes and

vehicular speeds (Federal Highway Administration 2019).

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 855: An Expanded Functional

Classification System for Highways and Streets: Identifies the recommended level of bicyclist separation in

space based on roadway classification and bicycle facility class (Stamatiadis et al. 2018).

Pedestrian Separation

The width necessary for a pedestrian facility along the roadway (sidewalk) typically depends on the speed 

of motorized traffic on the adjacent roadway and required separation, the amount of motorized traffic on 

the adjacent roadway, and the amount of pedestrian traffic adjacent to the roadway. In all contexts, FHWA 

recommends a minimum sidewalk width of five feet for two adult pedestrians to comfortably walk side-byside. In an urban core, where larger volumes of pedestrians often occur, FHWA recommends wider sidewalks to 

accommodate two-way pedestrian traffic, congregating groups of pedestrians, and street furniture. The resources 

listed below can inform practitioners of pedestrian separation in space in an urban core:

• Roadside Design Guide: Presents a synthesis of current information and operating practices related to

roadside safety, including design features for urban areas (AASHTO, 2011).

• Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations: Presents guidance for selecting

uncontrolled crossing location countermeasures based on roadway configuration, posted speed limit, and

traffic volumes (Federal Highway Administration 2018).

• NCHRP Report 855: An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets: Identifies the level

of pedestrian separation in space based on roadway classification and pedestrian traffic level (Stamatiadis

et al. 2018).

• Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: Provides practical guidance for separating

pedestrians in space at numerous transportation facilities such as crossing locations, intersections, transit

stops, railroad crossings, and along the roadway (Federal Highway Administration 2013b).
29

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Transit User Separation

Transit routes are typically fixed and well-defined by the local transit agency to meet the demands of the transit 

ridership. It is important to coordinate with local agencies to establish the transit overlays and ensure safe and 

accessible access to transit stops and to accommodate the needs of transit riders. Resources that can inform 

practitioners of overall considerations for transit user separation in space include the following:

• Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit: Many transit riders start their trip by walking,

rolling, or bicycling (Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration 2022). This manual

was developed for use of transit agencies, State and local roadway owners, and regional organizations

involved with planning and designing transit stops and the pedestrian and bicycle facilities that provide

access to transit.

• Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit: Provides a compendium of noteworthy practices

to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety and access to transit, including information on evaluating,

planning for, and implementing improvements to pedestrian and bicycle access to transit (Federal Transit

Administration 2017).

• Urban Street Design Guide: Provides considerations on sidewalks to access transit stops, street crossing

locations, dedicated waiting areas, and accessible boarding and alighting areas (National Association of City

Transportation Officials 2013).

SEPARATION IN TIME

Bicyclist Separation

In the context of the urban core, a few methods for separating bicyclists in time are the following:

• Bicycle signal face: At intersections where bicycle movements need to be separated in time from a

conflicting vehicular movement, such as locations with a high volume of turning vehicles, bicycle signal

faces can allow for a separate bicycle phase or movement. Bicycle signal faces are currently allowed through

the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Interim Approval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal

Face (IA-16), which requires jurisdictions to receive approval from FHWA prior to using this treatment

(Federal Highway Administration 2013a).

• Leading Bicycle Interval (LBI): An LBI provides bicyclists with several seconds of green time before the

concurrent vehicular movement receives a green indication. This early green interval gives bicyclists a head

start at establishing themselves in intersections.

Resources that can inform practitioners of how to separate bicyclists in space include the following:

• Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: Presents practical guidance on separating

bicycle movements in time based on intersection and midblock crossing characteristics (Federal Highway

Administration 2014).
30

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Pedestrian Separation

A few examples of how pedestrian separation in time can be achieved in the urban core include the following:

• Exclusive pedestrian phasing: Exclusive pedestrian phasing is a pedestrian phase that is active only when

all conflicting vehicle movements are stopped across an approach to an intersection. It is important to

carefully consider accessibility to all pedestrians. Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS), for example, can be

integrated to communicate information in non-visual formats.

• Split phasing: In split phasing, the vehicular green phase is split into two parts: (1) pedestrians receive

protected walk time while vehicles traveling in parallel are given a green signal to go straight but not

turn, and (2) the pedestrian DON’T WALK is activated when vehicles are permitted to turn. Considering

accessibility for all pedestrians is important when implementing split phasing.

• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): As with an LBI, an LPI gives pedestrians an advance walk signal before

motorists receive a green signal, giving the pedestrian several seconds to start walking in the crosswalk

before a concurrent signal is provided to vehicles. LPIs are one of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures

(Federal Highway Administration 2021); transportation agencies should refer to guidance in the MUTCD on

LPI timing and ensure that pedestrian signals are accessible for all road users.

• Left turn phasing: The use of concurrent, protected/permissive, or protected left turn phasing provides

different levels of conflict reduction with parallel pedestrian movements.

The resources listed below can inform practitioners of pedestrian separation in time in an urban core:

• Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations: Presents guidance for selecting

uncontrolled crossing location countermeasures based on roadway configuration, posted speed limit, and

traffic volumes (Federal Highway Administration 2018).

• Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System: Provides practical guidance on pedestrian

separation in time based on intersection and midblock crossing characteristics (Federal Highway

Administration 2013b).

REDUCTION OF CRASH KINETIC ENERGY

The kinetic energy of a moving object is proportional to its mass and to the square of its velocity. During a 

crash, a fatal or serious injury can occur when kinetic energy exceeds the human body’s threshold for tolerating 

crash forces. In an urban core, especially due to the presence of vulnerable road users, it is important to reduce 

the kinetic energy in the event of a crash, which can be primarily achieved through speed reduction (Kumfer et 

al. 2019).

To address speed reduction in an urban core, the following elements should be considered:

• Design speed and target speed

• Speed limit reduction

• Speed reduction through engineering

• Speed reduction through education and high-visibility enforcement and/or speed safety cameras
31

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Design Speed and Target Speed

Design speed has been considered a primary factor in determining highway design criteria. According to the 

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, design speed is a selected speed used 

to determine the various geometric design features of the roadway. Traditionally, design speed has mostly been 

based on the needs of vehicular traffic (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 2018).

In project design, transportation professionals can consider a roadway’s target speed, which is defined as the 

highest speed at which vehicles should operate on a thoroughfare in a specific context, consistent with the 

level of multi-modal activity generated by adjacent land uses, to provide both mobility for motor vehicles and 

a supportive environment for pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit users (Federal Highway Administration 

2020). Practitioners should consider whether a lower target speed is appropriate for thoroughfares in walkable, 

mixed-use urban areas.

Speed Limit Reduction

One approach that agencies have taken in recent years to encourage lower speeds is to statutorily reduce speed 

limits on arterials or local residential streets in urban areas. Recently, city and State transportation agencies 

committed to Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and the Safe System Approach have been reducing speed limits 

and exploring new methodologies to determine speed limits to increase safety. There are several studies that 

discuss the potential impacts of speed limit reduction on safety (Milton et al. 2021; Anderson, Monsere, and 

Kothuri, 2020; Karnadacharuk and McTiernan 2019; Jurewics and Hall 2009).

Speed Limit Setting 

Section 2B.13 of the MUTCD specifies that speed limits (other than statutory speed limits) must be established on 

the basis of an engineering study, which must include an analysis of the current speed distribution of free-flowing 

vehicles and may include consideration of a number of other factors related to road characteristics, road context, 

road users, and crash experience (Federal Highway Administration 2009). Consideration of these additional factors 

in the urban core may result in a decision to set the speed limit lower than the speed of free-flowing vehicles.

Speed Reduction Through Engineering

Reducing speed limits alone often will not achieve a desired operating target speed. Designs and retrofits that 

alter the configuration of the roadway or driver perception can be implemented to create friction and reduce 

vehicular speeds. A few strategies that can be considered in the urban core include the following:

• Traffic calming (Federal Highway Administration 2017)

• Traffic signal timing (Furth et al. 2018)

In the urban core, the needs of non-motorized road users should be considered. Reducing vehicular turning 

speeds is important for pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Some design measures are listed below:

• Minimizing the size of a corner radius creates compact intersections with safe turning speeds and shorter

crossing distances. In urban settings, smaller corner radii are preferred, and many cities use corner radii as

small as 2 feet (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2013).
32

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• “Protected intersections” can reduce the likelihood of high-speed vehicle turns, improve sightlines, and

reduce the distance and time during which bicyclists are exposed to conflicts (National Association of City

Transportation Officials 2019).

Figure 15 shows an example of a protected intersection diagram.

Source: NACTO 2019.

Figure 15. Graphic. Protected intersection diagram. 

Speed Reduction Through Education and Enforcement

Education and targeted enforcement can also be part of the strategy to discourage speeding and achieve target 

speeds in the urban core (Malin and Luoma 2020). With respect to enforcement measures, such as high-visibility 

enforcement and speed safety cameras, it is important to ensure that equity is considered when implementing 

these measures. Speed safety cameras are included in FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasure Selection Tool.

INCREASED ATTENTIVENESS AND AWARENESS

The presence of several road user types in an urban core and the high level of interactions between them requires 

increased road user attentiveness and awareness. A typical marked crosswalk or a pedestrian warning sign may 

not be sufficient for drivers to anticipate the presence of pedestrians and yield to them. Increasing visibility 

through street lighting or daylighting intersections and adding conspicuity enhancements to traffic control 

devices, for example, may be important in an urban core. Resources that can educate practitioners on increasing 

attentiveness and awareness in an urban core include the following:

• MUTCD: The MUTCD contains the national standards governing all traffic control devices. Chapter 2A of the

MUTCD contains the provisions for signs, including information on how to enhance sign conspicuity based

upon engineering judgment (Federal Highway Administration 2009).

• Proven Safety Countermeasures: This publication provides practical guidance to help practitioners

understand the safety effectiveness of traffic control device enhancements applicable to an urban core,

such as signal backplates with reflective borders, crosswalk visibility enhancements, rectangular rapid

flashing beacons, and street lighting (Federal Highway Administration 2021).
33

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Urban Core Countermeasures

The following countermeasures can be useful in applying the Safe System Approach framework in an urban 

core. For more information on countermeasures and their safety effectiveness, visit FHWA’s Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, FHWA’s Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, FHWA’s Pedestrian Safety 

Guide and Countermeasure Selection System, and FHWA Crash Modification Factor Clearinghouse.

Speed Management

• Advisory Speed Plaques

• Reduced Speed Limit Ahead Signs

• Speed Feedback Signs

• Speed Safety Cameras

• Appropriate Speed Limits for All Road Users

Signs and Sign Enhancements

• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons

Signals

• Leading Bicycle/Pedestrian Intervals

• Exclusive Pedestrian Phasing

• Split Phasing

• Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections 

• Green Wave Signal Timing

• Yellow Change Intervals

• Bicycle Signals

• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons

• Backplates with Retroreflective Borders

Markings

• High-Visibility Crosswalks

• Wider Edge Lines

Vertical Separation

• Separated Bicycle Lanes

• Bollards, Planters, and Delineators

Vertical Deflection

• Raised Intersections

• Raised Crosswalks

• Speed Tables, Humps, and Bumps

• Speed Cushions

Road Geometry

• Road Diets

• Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Islands

• Protected Intersections

• Roundabouts

• Curb Extensions 

• Reduced Curb Radii

• Left-Turn Hardening

Crosscutting

• Lighting

• Local Road Safety Plans

35

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Applying the Safe System Approach in the 

Urban Core

This section outlines key steps for applying the principles, elements, and framework of the Safe System Approach 

in policy, program, and project decision-making processes for transportation professionals making planning 

and engineering decisions and elected officials making policy decisions. These checklists are based on existing 

information in place in the United States, including existing informational reports from FHWA. These checklists 

may be applicable to all or portions of a policy or project, and applying as many components as possible of these 

checklists that are applicable to the given context should be considered. These checklists outline a path for how 

to apply the Safe System Approach in the urban core. 

These checklists describe a process for both quantitatively and qualitatively prioritizing safety in transportation 

decisions; however, they are not meant to be standalone tools. Practitioners should reference the original source 

cited for full context and safety considerations in using these checklists. Context sensitive design and solutions, 

design flexibility, and engineering judgment are all key when using these checklists, and safety should remain 

a top priority. Practitioners are encouraged to ensure that as many elements are considered as possible in their 

decision-making process and through the lens of what is going to create the least crash-severity risk for all road 

users present. 

The first checklist is intended to serve as a planning tool for practitioners to apply the Safe System Approach at 

a broader level, while the project checklist is intended for specific projects in the urban core. The checklists later 

in this chapter provide more specific factors for common safety challenges in the urban core. The recommended 

order to use the checklists included in this chapter is shown below:

1. Safe System Approach in the Urban Core Safety Planning Checklist: This checklist is a starting point, and 

it can be used to inform practitioners at a broader level. Steps 1 through 4 focus on agency decision making, 

big picture safety concerns, development of safety plans, and collaborations for safety decisions. When reaching 

Step 5 of this checklist, practitioners can refer to the “Safe System Approach in the Urban Core Project Checklist” 

to understand the steps for implementing a project following systemic or site-specific levels.

2. Safe System Approach in the Urban Core Project Checklist: After an overview of the system’s safety 

concerns are identified and a safety plan is elaborated, practitioners are ready to use this second checklist to 

understand the detailed steps for implementing systemic and site-specific projects, from project planning 

to maintenance. Step 1 of this checklist informs how system safety issues can be prioritized for further 

investigation into factors contributing to crashes. The “Systemic Safety Analysis Checklist” can be used as a 

reference for Step 1 of the project checklist. When projects are defined, Step 2 focuses on existing conditions, 

specific issues, and proposed solutions to improve safety. On Step 2, practitioners can refer to the remaining 

checklists (Urban Arterials in an Urban Core Checklist, Speed Limit Setting Checklist, Urban Core Intersections 

Checklist, and Vulnerable Road Users Checklist) to identify safety improvements that can address safety 

challenges specific to the project.

3. Systemic Safety Analysis Checklist: Introduced during Step 2 of the Safe System Approach in the Urban 

Core Project Checklist, to be used as a reference for systemic projects.
36

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

4. Urban Arterials in an Urban Core Checklist, Speed Limit Setting Checklist, Urban Core Intersections 

Checklist, and Vulnerable Road Users Checklist: These checklists are used when the project focus 

has been defined, and help practitioners identify proposed solutions to specific project concerns. These 

checklists can be used for both systemic and site-specific projects.

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH IN THE URBAN CORE SAFETY PLANNING 

CHECKLIST

The planning checklist is intended to serve as a tool for practitioners to apply the Safe System Approach at a 

broader policy, program, and project level. The planning checklist below was adapted from the FHWA Safe 

Transportation for Every Pedestrian (STEP) Studio (Federal Highway Administration n.d.(e)):

1. Apply the Safe System Approach elements, principles, and framework across all agency decision making 

processes.

a. Ensure all elements are considered in agency processes

b. Apply all principles in a way that prioritizes safety for all road users

c. Consider the Safe System Approach framework in all actions of the agency

2. Identify the problems 

a. Collect data

b. Engage the public

c. Inventory conditions and prioritize locations

d. Analyze crash types and safety issues

e. Disaggregate data to identify equity issues

f. Conduct road safety audits 

3. Develop safety action plans

a. Engage the public throughout

b. Identify a goal year to eliminate traffic fatalities

c. Incorporate the elements, principles, and framework of the Safe System Approach

d. Include the core elements of Vision Zero

e. Conduct safety analysis

f. Incorporate equity considerations such as demographic and health data

g. Create goals that can be achieved and are aspirational

h. Set actions that are clear and measurable

i. Change processes and system elements toward prioritizing safety

j. Include performance measures that help track progress toward zero traffic deaths (Vision Zero 

Network 2018)

4. Collaborate on safety decisions

a. Engage the public, reduce barriers to participation, and expand opportunities for engagement

b. Include the needs of underserved communities 

c. Engage elected and appointed officials
37

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

d. Engage key stakeholder groups

e. Integrate safety into all agency departments

f. Work closely with partner agencies

g. Review agency policies for prioritizing safety

h. Ensure safety is a priority in budgets

5. Implement strategies and solutions (refer to the “Safe System Approach in the Urban Core Project

Checklist”)

a. System planning

b. Project planning and preliminary engineering

c. Countermeasure selection

d. Consult design resources

e. Design and construction

f. Maintenance and safety monitoring

6. Identify additional opportunities and monitor outcomes

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH IN THE URBAN CORE PROJECT CHECKLIST

The following checklist should be applied at a project level in addition to the safety planning checklist outlined 

previously. The below checklist applies to all projects, either at a systemic level or site-specific level. This checklist 

outlines key things to keep in mind throughout a transportation project from planning through maintenance.

Step 1: System Planning

a. Determine priority corridors using high injury network mapping to understand existing crash

contributing factors and conduct systemic safety analyses through network screening of similar

conditions (refer to “Systemic Safety Analysis Checklist”).

b. Evaluate social, demographic, and health data to identify underserved communities.

c. Engage the community in the discussion of safety needs and build trust.

d. Determine if any policy or standards should and can be changed to prioritize safety.

e. Develop, update, or align a proactive safety plan across the agency with specific safety performance

measures, such as a Vision Zero Action Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, or Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

Step 2: Project Planning and Preliminary Engineering

a. Observe existing conditions including safety risks, accessibility barriers for individuals with disabilities,

and how all road users are operating.

b. Establish modal priorities.

c. Identify land use generators.

d. Determine how safety and accessibility could be prioritized.

e. Measure crash risk and understand crash causation.

f. Conduct a risk assessment.

g. Identify ways to reduce conflicts.

h. Engage the community in the design process.

i. Ensure that key Safe System Approach elements in an urban core are incorporated (refer to the Key
38

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Safe System Approach Elements in an Urban Core section).

i. Separate users in space and/or time in a way that will prevent a crash from being fatal.

ii. Increase attentiveness and awareness of all road users.

iii. Reduce impact forces.

iv. Reduce speeds.

j. Apply the Urban Core Challenge Checklists as needed (refer to Urban Arterials in an Urban Core 

Checklist, Speed Limit Setting Checklist, Urban Core Intersections Checklist, and Vulnerable Road 

Users Checklist).

k. Develop concept design through the lens of the Safe System Approach while ensuring that 

pedestrian facilities are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.

l. Determine countermeasures that will eliminate fatal and serious injury crashes (refer to Urban Core 

Countermeasures).

m. Estimate safety effectiveness of implementing countermeasures.

n. If possible, revise any further policies or standards that limit prioritizing safety as the goal.

o. Present project to the community for feedback and ensure it prioritizes safety.

Step 3: Design and Construction

a. Design using key elements as outlined in the Key Safe System Approach Elements in an Urban Core.

b. Ensure projects are constructed using the Safe System Approach.

c. Ensure that elements fundamental to the Safe System Approach and accessibility are not 

compromised during the design and construction stages.

d. Apply performance-based practical design principles to project investment decisions so that overall 

system performance is optimized. 

e. Report to the community on recent changes and safety benefits.

Step 4: Maintenance and Safety Monitoring

a. Conduct field observations following implementation and make field adjustments.

b. If the project was a temporary or quick build due to a desire to test the safety benefit, monitor and 

benchmark when permanent improvements will be made.

c. Ensure all traffic control devices are accessible and usable by persons with disabilities.

d. Maintain and replace devices and countermeasures as needed to ensure they continue to provide 

high safety function.

e. Establish and evaluate performance indicators:

i. Safety metrics: Fatal and serious injury crashes, safety surrogate variables, perceptions of safety 

and comfort.

ii. Mobility metrics: Increases in walking or bicycling, network of pedestrian facilities that are 

accessible to people with disabilities, curb use that promotes safe mobility for all users, etc.

iii. Health impact metrics: Hospital data, climate impacts, emergency response and access, access to 

active transportation opportunities, etc.

iv. Community perception and feedback metrics: Interviews, surveys, focus groups, walk audits/

assessments, etc.

f. Document effectiveness of safety improvement, including key countermeasure details that worked 

and how.

g. If fatal and serious injury crashes are still occurring, make field adjustments beginning with Step 2.

h. Determine where and how the application can be applied across the network for safety improvement 

using systemic safety analysis.
39

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS

The systemic approach to safety is a data-driven process that involves analytical techniques to identify sites 

for potential safety improvement and suggests projects for safety investment not typically identified through 

the traditional site analysis approach (Federal Highway Administration 2013c). Traditional network screening 

techniques have focused on identifying locations with a history of severe crashes, often known as hot-spot or 

high injury network mapping. While this is helpful information to know, evidence indicates that severe crashes are 

actually widely distributed across the local road system, and few individual locations experience a high number 

or sustained occurrence of severe crashes. As a result, adding a systemic approach to safety management efforts 

is important to the Safe System Approach. The systemic approach uses historical crash data to identify high-risk 

roadway features that correlate with recurring severe crashes (Grembek, Pasquet, and Vanoli 2019).

A proactive systemic safety analysis relies on complete and detailed underlying data and should consider safety, 

mobility, health impacts, and community perception and feedback factors. Integrating equity data into safety 

analysis is important to fill in gaps in crash reporting and incomplete roadway data. Examples of quantitative and 

qualitative data that can be used to further understand crash occurrence and severity are listed below: 

• Demographic data: Practitioners can disaggregate and examine local crash fatality and serious injury data

by social and demographic variables of person and place.

• Health data: Social Determinants of Health, hospital data, and emergency response data can inform data

analysis (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention n.d.).

• Community perception and feedback data: Qualitative information can be derived from interviews, surveys,

focus groups, and road safety audits (RSA).

For further information on systemic safety analysis, there are several additional references available for 

practitioners (Waldheim, Wemple, and Fish 2015; National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2017; Grembek, 

Pasquet, and Vanoli 2019; Torbic, Hutton, Kolody Silverman, and Harwood 2020).
40

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Systemic Safety Analysis Checklist

To conduct systemic safety analysis in an urban core, follow the methodologies adapted from the FHWA Systemic 

Safety Project Selection Tool as outlined below (Federal Highway Administration 2013c):

1. Identify Focus Crash Types and Risk Factors

F Task 1: Collect and Analyze Crash and Roadway Data

F Task 2: Disaggregate Data by Social and Demographic Variables

F Task 3: Select Focus Crash Types

F Task 4: Select Focus Facilities

F Task 5: Identify and Evaluate Risk Factors

2. Screen and Prioritize Candidate Locations

F Task 1: Identify Network Elements to Analyze

F Task 2: Engage Community Representatives to Understand Safety Needs

F Task 3: Collect and Analyze Quantitative and Qualitative Equity Data

F Task 4: Conduct Risk Assessment

F Task 5: Prioritize Focus Facility Elements

3. Select Countermeasures

F Task 1: Assemble Comprehensive List of Countermeasures

F Task 2: Evaluate and Screen Countermeasures

F Task 3: Engage the Community

F Task 4: Select Countermeasures for Deployment

4. Prioritize Projects

F Task 1: Create a Decision Process for Countermeasure Selection, Incorporating Equity Considerations

that Eliminate Disparities in Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries

F Task 2: Develop Safety Projects

F Task 3: Prioritize Safety Project Implementation (Preston, Storm, Bennett, and Wemple 2013)

5. Identify Funding for Systemic Program and Implement

6. Perform Systemic Program Evaluation: Monitor Outcomes and Continuously Improve Outcomes with

Communities
41

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

There are tools available to assist practitioners in conducting systemic safety analysis. One example is the United 

States Road Assessment Program (usRAP), a data-driven planning tool for analyzing the safety of a roadway and 

recommending solutions for addressing safety concerns. usRAP uses video data and predictive risk models to 

proactively identify potential safety concerns. The tool also assigns star ratings to each road segment on the road 

network, which can help inform road investment decisions (Roadway Safety Foundation n.d.). 

Applying the Safe System Approach to Specific Urban Core Challenges

FHWA has identified critical safety challenges for all road users in an urban core. The following sections provide 

background, guidance, and a checklist for each challenge area. The checklists included in this section can be used 

by practitioners as reminders of how existing research and tools are used to ensure the Safe System Approach is 

applied in an urban core. The urban core safety challenge areas are the following:

• Urban Arterials in an Urban Core

• Speed Management

• Urban Core Intersections

• Vulnerable Road Users

Urban Arterials in an Urban Core

Urban arterials are major and minor thoroughfares that carry higher traffic volumes, generally with higher speed 

limits, and generally use a design that features multiple wide travel lanes and fewer crossing opportunities for 

non-motorized users. Most intersections on urban arterials are signalized. Urban arterials were the location of 

29 percent of fatal crashes in the United States and 49 percent of fatal crashes that involved people walking and 

riding bicycles (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2020). 

To overcome these safety concerns in an urban core, new development can limit the number of urban arterials 

and ensure they are designed for safer conditions and preference toward pedestrians and cyclists, while existing 

urban arterials can be reoriented toward the more efficient movement of mass transport, freight, pedestrians, 

and bicycles (Welle et al. 2015). It is also important to include context-sensitive roadway design elements rather 

than focusing solely on the functional classification of a roadway. Important strategies for implementing the 

Safe System Approach in urban arterials in an urban core include modal considerations and accommodation for 

drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and overlays (transit and freight).

There are a few resources where practitioners can find information in applying the Safe System Approach in 

urban arterials in an urban core (Turner et al. 2017; Harwood et al. 2008; Federal Highway Administration 2022). A 

context overlay was added in AASHTO’s Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition, based on 

NCHRP Report 855: An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets (Stamatiadis et al. 2018), 

which allows planners and engineers the flexibility to select a roadway design that can achieve its safety and 

mobility goals based on an expanded functional classification matrix. The framework in NCHRP Report 855 is not 

specific to the Safe System Approach, but provides examples on how to include context, road functions, and user 

needs to facilitate urban arterial roadway design in an urban core. 
42

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Urban Arterials in an Urban Core Safe System Approach Checklist

Drawn from the methodologies of NCHRP Report 855: An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways 

and Streets (Stamatiadis et al. 2018):

F Review transportation agency policy and planning to understand project vision

F Review available data 

F Consider right-of-way and other constraints 

F Identify context of the study area

F Identify transportation networks

o Automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian networks

o Overlays (transit, freight)

F Identify specific modal accommodation needs 

o Driver accommodation

o Bicyclist accommodation

o Pedestrian accommodation

o Transit rider accommodation as an overlay

o Freight accommodation as an overlay 

o Access management

F Apply the Safe System Approach framework

o Identify road user separation in space

o Identify road user separation in time

o Identify ways to reduce kinetic energy in the event of a crash

o Increase attentiveness and awareness for all road users

Speed Management

Higher speeds are connected to safety concerns. According to NHTSA, of the 11,063 speeding-related fatalities in 

traffic crashes in 2020 with known roadway function class, 5,473 (49 percent) occurred on non-interstate urban 

roads (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 2021). Pedestrians, bicyclists, and other road users outside 

of vehicles are particularly susceptible to the kinetic energy present in crashes at high speeds.

To implement a Safe System Approach for speed management, it is important to balance three elements: 

defining a target speed, adjusting the speed limit where necessary, and incorporating engineering measures 

that support the speed limit. In addition, considerations to speed enforcement and education are important to 

ensure lower vehicular speeds in an urban core. There are a number of available tools that can help in taking 

these factors into account while setting context sensitive speed limits. These include USLIMITS2 for Road Sections 

in Developed Areas, NCHRP Report 966: Posted Speed Limit Setting Procedure and Tool, and the NACTO City Limits 

guide (Federal Highway Administration 2020c; Fitzpatrick et al. 2021; National Association of City Transportation 

Officials 2020).
43

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• USLIMITS2 for Road Sections in Developed Areas: USLIMITS2 is a web-based tool designed to help 

practitioners set reasonable, safe, and consistent speed limits for specific segments of roads (Federal 

Highway Administration 2020c). For road sections in the urban core, the following input variables are 

required: Operating speed (speed distribution of free-flowing vehicles), section length, annual average daily 

traffic, presence/absence of adverse alignment, current statutory speed limit for this type of road, whether 

it is a one-way street, number of through lanes (in both directions), area type, number of driveways within 

the section, number of traffic signals within the section, presence/usage of on-street parking, extent of 

ped/bike activity, and crash statistics.

• NCHRP Report 966: Posted Speed Limit Setting Procedure and Tool: This manual provides and explains a speed 

limit setting procedure (SLS-Procedure) that considers factors beyond the 85th percentile speed, including 

both driver speed choice and safety associated with the roadway (Fitzpatrick et al. 2021).

• NACTO City Limits: NACTO’s resource gives practitioners a detailed, context-sensitive method to set safe 

speed limits on urban streets (National Association of City Transportation Officials 2020). Using the Safe 

System Approach, City Limits provides a consistent, rational, scalable approach to urban speed limit setting, 

from citywide strategies to corridor-by-corridor methods based on easy-to-study street characteristics.

Speed Limit Setting and the Safe System Approach Checklist

The checklist below is based largely on the data inputs of the USLIMITS2 for Road Sections in Developed Areas, 

NCHRP Report 966: Posted Speed Limit Setting Procedure and Tool, and NACTO City Limits document, and is meant 

to assist practitioners in ensuring that relevant performance and context factors are taken into consideration 

when setting context appropriate speed limits (Fitzpatrick et al. 2021, National Association of City Transportation 

Officials 2020).

F Operating speed/speed distribution 

of free-flowing vehicles

F Section length 

F Annual average daily traffic 

F Presence/absence of adverse alignment 

F Current statutory speed limit for this type of 

road 

F Whether it is a one-way street 

F Number of through lanes (in both directions) 

F Area type 

F Number of driveways within the section 

F Number of traffic signals within the section 

F Presence/usage of on-street parking 

F Extent of ped/bike activity  

o Bicyclist activity in motor vehicle lane, 

shoulder, or nonseparated bike lane 

o Bicyclist activity in separated bike lane 

o Sidewalk presence/width, sidewalk 

buffer, 

and pedestrian activity 

F Crash statistics 

o Crash rate 

F Apply conflict & activity level analysis 

to the risk matrix 

o Conflict density analysis 

o Activity level analysis Urban Core 

Intersections 
44

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Urban Core Intersections 

A notable share of crashes in urban areas occur at intersections due to the complexity of movements and a 

variety of road users, including pedestrians and bicyclists. Severe intersection crashes are linked to high entry 

speeds and specific crash impact angles, such as right-angle and head-on (Juerwicz, Tofler and Makwasha 2015). 

To implement a Safe System Approach at intersections in the urban core, planners and designers should focus 

on the following four key principles: minimize conflict points, remove/simplify road user decisions, minimize 

impact angles, and minimize entry and impact speeds. Elements to be considered when selecting an intersection 

design are the applicable context, alignment with Safe System principles, potential for crash reduction, and cost. 

(Jurewicz, Chau, et al. 2017). 

There are a few comprehensive resources that practitioners can use when selecting intersection design elements 

aligned with the Safe System Approach (Candappa 2015; Juerwicz, Tofler and Makwasha 2015; Jurewicz, Chau, 

et al. 2017). The FHWA’s A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing Intersections 

presents a framework that practitioners can use to design and implement intersection projects to improve safety 

(Federal Highway Administration 2021a). This approach integrates principles such as conflict point identification 

and classification, exposure, kinetic energy transfer, conflict point severity, and intersection movement 

complexity. FHWA’s framework provides a set of Safe System for Intersection (SSI) scores that can be used as 

one of several metrics in a countermeasure selection process. The SSI scores rely on data that can be collected 

fairly easily for a given intersection, and includes posted speed limit, traffic volumes, travel lanes, and turning 

movements, among others. The SSI framework was not specifically designed for urban areas, but provides 

example applications for signalized intersections in urban, suburban, and rural environments.

In addition to the SSI framework, FHWA’s Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) is a data–driven, performance–

based framework to screen intersection alternatives and identify an optimal solution. Further, the Safety 

Performance for Intersection Control Evaluation (SPICE) can be used as guidance for making safety improvements 

at intersections (Federal Highway Administration n.d.(b)).

Additionally, the FHWA Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide provides guidance 

and key design features to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections, which is particularly applicable 

in an urban area where intersections often have the most conflicts and safety risk. This report highlights that “[w]hen 

designed with pedestrians and bicyclists explicitly in mind, all types of intersections can facilitate safe, accessible, 

convenient, and comfortable walking and bicycling” (Federal Highway Administration 2022c). 

Examples of intersection design elements that can minimize conflict points, remove/simplify road user decisions, 

minimize impact angles, and minimize entry and impact speeds include the following:

• Left turn hardening

• Reduced curb radii

• Protected intersections

• Roundabouts

• Raised crosswalks or tabled intersection

• Signal timing adjustments that separate users in time

• One-way vs 2-way streets (to reduce conflicts)

• Crosswalk visibility enhancements
45

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Urban Core Intersection Safe System Approach Checklist

The checklist below follows the methodologies presented in A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical 

Methodology for Assessing Intersections and provides practitioners information on how to design urban core 

intersections (Federal Highway Administration 2021a):

F Follow Stage 1 Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) 

F Calculate Conflict Point Identification and Classification

F Calculate Crash Frequency and Exposure Rate

F Calculate Conflict Point Severity

F Calculate Movement Complexity

F Determine SSI and Measure of Effectiveness Results

F Look up in Appendix A: SSI Library of Intersection Types and consider all key characteristics and 

considerations

F If possible, expand to other conflict types

F If possible, develop data and models to support intersection speed prediction

F If possible, link SSI Measures of Effectiveness and scores to Fatal and Serious Injury crash frequencies 

(Federal Highway Administration, 2021)

Vulnerable Road Users

People walking, biking, and rolling are the road users most likely to be injured or killed in a crash (Welle et al. 

2015). Therefore, the Safe System Approach inherently prioritizes pedestrians and bicyclists in its approach to 

reducing the risk of fatal and serious injuries of road users (Goughnour et al. 2021). Most interactions between 

pedestrians and bicyclists and motor vehicles are in urban settings. Protection and consideration for vulnerable 

road users should be a priority in policy, speed reduction, and pedestrian and bicyclist supporting infrastructure.

Resources that can inform practitioners of vulnerable road user concerns with respect to the Safe System 

Approach and provide information potential countermeasures include the following:

• Primer on Safe System Approach for Pedestrian and Bicyclists: Provides transportation agencies a baseline 

understanding of pedestrian and bicycle concerns with respect to each of the five elements of the Safe 

System Approach (Goughnour et al. 2021).

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: Micromobility: Includes a set of resources to better understand 

the impact of micromobility on the transportation network and provides best practices and considerations 

to regulate shared micromobility (Federal Highway Administration n.d.(c)).

• Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: Equity: Provides resources and examples to address safety 

conditions in communities and underserved populations, where pedestrians and bicyclists are 

overrepresented in fatal and serious injury crashes (Federal Highway Administration n.d.(a)).
46

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• Cities Safer by Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street Design: 

Provides an in-depth resource for the Safe System Approach techniques and evidence-based designs 

to improve safety on urban facilities including street plazas, transit infrastructure, and arterials 

(Welle et al. 2015).

• Towards a Safe System for Cycling: Identifies potential mitigation initiatives based on analyses that show how 

the system failed for specific urban cycling crash types (Mackie et al. 2017).

• NCHRP Report 926: Guidance to Improve Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety at Intersections: Presents practical 

guidance to help practitioners select and install countermeasures to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety 

at intersections, making a connection between systemic safety and a Safe System (National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine 2020)

• NCHRP Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis: Provides a framework for a systemic pedestrian safety 

management process through analysis. It walks state DOT and regional and local agency staff through a 

seven-step process for a performance-based decision making for pedestrian safety (Thomas et al. 2018). 

• Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts: Guides practitioners on 

how to reduce multimodal conflicts and achieve connected networks, resulting in safe, comfortable, and 

attractive options for pedestrians and bicyclists (Federal Highway Administration 2016).

• NCHRP Report 948: Guide for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Alternative and Other Intersections and 

Interchanges: Outlines how alternative Intersections and Interchanges should accommodate vulnerable 

road users (National Cooperative Highway Research Program 2021).
47

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Vulnerable Road Users Checklist

There is not a specific checklist to address vulnerable road users in an urban core. However, following the 

available steps and guidance for pedestrian safety analysis and tailoring to specific conditions can be applicable 

to all vulnerable road users. This checklist informs practitioners on how to apply design flexibilities and further 

reduction of crash conflict through context sensitive design, as adapted from NCHRP Report 893: Systemic 

Pedestrian Safety Analysis and Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts as 

outlined below: 

F Step 1: Define Study Scope 

F Step 2: Compile Data 

F Step 3: Determine Risk Factors

F Step 4: Identify Potential Treatment Sites

F Step 5: Select Potential Countermeasures 

F Step 6: Refine and Implement Treatment 

Plan 

o Part 1: Apply Design Flexibility

Ì Lane Width

Ì Intersection Geometry

Ì Traffic Calming and Design Speed

Ì Transitions to Main Streets

Ì Road Diets and Traffic Analysis

Ì Enhanced Crossing Treatments

Ì Signalized Intersections

Ì Paved Shoulders

Ì Separated Bike Lanes

Ì Bus Stops 

Ì Bridge Design

Ì Slow Streets

o Part 2: Reduce Conflicts

Ì Network Connectivity

Ì School Access

Ì Multimodal Access to Existing Transit 

Stations

Ì Multimodal Access to New Transit Stations

Ì Transit Conflicts

Ì Freight Interaction

Ì Accessibility

Ì Turning Vehicles

Ì Sidewalks

Ì Separated Bike Lanes at Intersections

Ì Shared Use Paths

Ì Midblock Path Intersections

F Step 7: Evaluate Program and Project 

Impacts 

(National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, 

and Medicine, 2018) (Federal Highway 

Administration, 2016)

49

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Case Studies of Noteworthy Practices

The appendix contains 10 case studies of noteworthy practices that are relevant to implementing the Safe System 

Approach in the urban core. Eight of these case studies are from States or cities in the United States and two are 

from international locations in Europe and South America that cover multiple locations each. The purpose of 

these case studies is to provide practical examples of how some of the key concepts covered in this report have 

already been implemented and what benefits have been realized.

51

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Conclusions, Use, and Next Steps

This report has provided some initial information that should be useful to transportation professionals as they 

explore and implement safety strategies and countermeasures in the context of the Safe System Approach in 

urban core areas. Implementation of the Safe System Approach in the United States remains relatively new and 

practices in this area will continue to evolve as more experience is accumulated and more places commit to use of 

the Safe System Approach. Ultimately, sufficient experience will be gained to confidently develop best practices 

and more specific guidance for transportation professionals. The urban core environment is a key location where 

use of the Safe System Approach can be effective in reducing and eliminating fatalities and serious injuries, 

particularly among vulnerable road users, but it is just a starting point. Full adoption and use of the Safe System 

Approach will require applying it in all contexts.
52

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

References

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. (2011). Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2010). Highway Safety Manual. Washington, DC: 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. (2018). Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 7th Edition. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway Officials.

Anderson, J., Monsere, C., & Kothuri, a. S. (2020). Effect of Residential Street Speed Limit Reduction from 25 to 

20 mi/hr on Driving Speeds in Portland, Oregon. Portland, Oregon: Portland State University.

Aumann, P., Bekavac, M., Steinmetz, L., Tziotis, M., Ahmed, F., Fanning, R., & Bobbermen, D. (2020). Road cross-section design 

for road stereotypes (including network safety plans) and a safe system. Austroads: https://trid.trb.org/view/1709442.

Australian Automobile Association (AAA). (2013). AusRAP – Star Rating Australia’s National Network Of Highways. https://www.

nrspp.org.au/resources/ausrap-star-rating-australias-national-network-of-highways/.

Austroads. (2022, January). Guide to Road Safety: Set. 

https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/agrs-set.

Bellingham, C. o. (2016). Bellingham Comprehensive Plan. https://cob.org/wp-content/uploads/2016-multimodaltransportation.pdf.

Bicycle Dutch. (2017, January). Systematic Safety: The Principles Behind Vision Zero. https://www.youtube.com/

watch?v=5aNtsWvNYKE.

Blue, E. (2016). Bikenomics: How Bicycling Can Save the Economy. 

Candappa, Nimmi, David Logan, Nicole Van Nes, and Bruce Corben. (2015). An exploration of alternative intersection designs in 

the context of Safe System. Accident Analysis & Prevention.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Social Determinants of Health: Know What Affects Health. https://www.cdc.

gov/socialdeterminants/index.htm.

City of Fremont. (2021). Fremont Vision Zero: Five Years of Progress & A Renewed Effort Towards Vision Zero. https://fremont.gov/

DocumentCenter/View/48202/FremontVZ_FinalPlan_2021-05-28.

City of Minneapolis. (n.d.). Minneapolis Vision Zero. 

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/visionzero/.

Clifton, K. J., C. D. Muhs, S. Morrissey, T. Morrissey, K. M. Currans, and C Ritter. (2013). Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel 

Choices. http://dx.doi.org/10.15760/trec.114.

Code of Federal Regulations. (2022). 23 CFR 490.205.

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-490/subpart-B/section-490.205.

European Conference of Ministers of Transport. (2000). Safety in Road Traffic for Vulnerable Users. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.

org/transport/safety-in-road-traffic-for-vulnerable-users_9789264181571-en.

Federal Highway Administration. (2003). CMAQ: Advancing Mobility and Air Quality. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ENVIRonment/

air_quality/cmaq/research/advancing_mobility/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2009 Edition Including Revision 1 dated 

May 2012 and Revision 2 dated May 2012. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/pdf_index.htm.
53

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Federal Highway Administration. (2013a). MUTCD – Interim Approval for Optional Use of a Bicycle Signal Face (IA-16). December 

24. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/resources/interim_approval/ia16/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2013b). “Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.” 

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/countermeasures.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (2013c). Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/

fhwasa13019/chap1.cfm#chap111.

Federal Highway Administration. (2014).“Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.”

http://pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/countermeasures.cfm

Federal Highway Administration. (2016, August). Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing 

Conflicts. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_networks/

fhwahep16055.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2017). The Dutch Approach to Bicycle Mobility: Retrofitting Street Design for Cycling. https://

international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl18004/chap04.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (2018a). Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-

2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2018b). Self-Enforcing Roadways: A Guidance Report (FHWA-HRT-17-098). 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17098/17098.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2018c). Using Context Sensitive Solutions to Achieve Context Sensitive Design, State of the 

Practice Assessment (FHWA-HEP-18-071). https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/css/key_references/sopassessment.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (2019). Bikeway Selection Guide. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/

fhwasa18077.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2020a). “Context Sensitive Solutions Design Controls and Criteria Fact Sheet 3: Design 

Factors to Control Speed.“ https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/css/design/controls/factsheet3_ite.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (2020b). The Safe System Approach. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_

SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2020c). USLIMITS2: A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed Limit 

Recommendations. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2021a). A Safe System-Based Framework and Analytical Methodology for Assessing 

Intersections. January. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ssi/fhwasa21008.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2021b). Proven Safety Countermeasures. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/

provencountermeasures/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2022a). Every Day Counts https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/everydaycounts/.

Federal Highway Administration. (2022b). “Global Benchmarking Program: Reducing Pedestrian Fatalities and Serious 

Injuries on Urban Signalized Arterials.” https://international.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/mrp/docs/FHWAPL2-020_GBP_

Ped_Safety%20_Desk_Review_final102822.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2022c). Improving Intersections for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Informational Guide. April. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/about/fhwasa22017.pdf.
54

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Federal Highway Administration. (2022d). Justice40 Initiative. https://www.transportation.gov/equity-Justice40.

Federal Highway Administration. (2022e). Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Opportunities 

and Challenges. March. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-03/Complete%20Streets%20Report%20

to%20Congress.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2022f). “Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment Guidance.“ Highway Safety Improvement 

Program (HSIP). https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-10/VRU%20Safety%20Assessment%20

Guidance%20FINAL_508.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (2023). “Safe System Approach.” (presentation). https://highways.dot.gov/safety/zerodeaths/safe-system-approach-presentation-0.

Federal Highway Administration. (n.d. (a)). Equity. https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/equity.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (n.d. (b)). Intersection Control Evaluation. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/ice/.

Federal Highway Administration. (n.d. (c)). Micromobility. https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/micromobility.cfm.

Federal Highway Administration. (n.d. (d)). Safe Streets and Roads for All Action Plan Components. https://www.transportation.

gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-06/SS4A_Action_Plan_Components.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration. (n.d. (e)). STEP Studio. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_

studio.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration. (2022). “Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

Accessing Transit.”

Federal Transit Administration. (2017). “Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit.” https://www.transit.dot.

gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf.

Fitzpatrick, Kay, Subasish Das, Michael P. Pratt, Karen Dixon, and Tim Gates. (2021). NCHRP Report 966: Posted Speed Limit 

Setting Procedure and Tool: User Guide. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC: 

The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26216.

Furth, Peter G., Ahmed T. M., Jin Li Halawani, Weimin (Jake) Hu, and Burak Cesme. (2018). “Using Traffic Signal Control to Limit 

Speeding Opportunities on Bidirectional Urban Arterials.” Transportation Research Record 2672 107–16. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118790638.

Goughnour, Elissa, Kara Peach, Michael Dunn, Meghan Mitman, and Dan Gelinne. (2021). Primer on Safe System A pproach for 

Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Federal Highway Administration.

Governors Highway Safety Association. (2021). “An Analysis of Traffic Fatalities by Race and Ethnicity.” https://www.ghsa.org/

sites/default/files/2021-06/An%20Analysis%20of%20Traffic%20Fatalities%20by%20Race%20and%20Ethnicity_0.pdf.

Grembek, Offer, Joy Pasquet, and Catalina Vanoli. (2019). An Enhanced Systemic Approach to Road Safety. Berkeley, CA: 

Collaborative Sciences Center for Road Safety. Accessed 11 16, 2021. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/56815.

Harirchian, Minoo, Maral Esmaeili, and Shahab Kermanshahi. (2018). “A New Perspective on Urban Street Design.” Paper 

presented to the 97th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. https://www.researchgate.net/

publication/334593338_A_New_Perspective_on_Urban_Street_Design.

Harwood, Douglas W., Karin M. Bauer, Karen R. Richard, David K. Gilmore, Jerry L. Graham, Ingrid B. Potts, and Darren J. 

Torbic. (2008). Methodology to Predict the Safety Performance of Urban and Suburban Arterials. National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23084. 
55

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Infrastructure Reinvestment and Jobs Act (“Bipartisan Infrastructure Law”) of 2021, Pub. L. No. 117-58, in Federal Register, 86 

FR 68297, pp. 68297-68298. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/12/01/2021-26145/infrastructure-andinvestment-jobs-act-request-for-information.

Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2019). Safe Systems Framewrok. November. https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=C8B1C6F9-

DCB5-C4F3-4332-4BBE1F58BA0D.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2021). Urban/Rural Comparison. March. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/

detail/urban-rural-comparison.

International Road Assessment Programme. (n.d.). RAP Infrastructure Safety Management Tools. https://irap.org/rap-tools/.

Juerwicz, Chris, Stephen Tofler, and and Tariro Makwasha. (2015). Improving the Performance of the Safe System Infrastructure. 

Sydney, Australia: Austroads.

Jurewicz, Chris and Ken Hall. 2009. Speed limit setting principles in the safe system context. Sydney: Australasian Road Safety 

Research, Policing and Education Conference.

Jurewicz, Chris, Phuong Chau, Amir Sobhani, and Jeremy Woolley. (2017). Understanding and Improving Safe System 

Intersection Performance. Sydney, Australia: Austroads AP-R556-16.

Karnadacharuk, Auttapone and David McTiernan. (2019). “Implementation Principles for 30 km/h Speed Limits and Zones.” 

Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 45-54.

Kumfer, W., S. LaJeunesse, L. Sandt, and L. Thomas. (2019). “Speed, Kinetic Energy, and the Safe Systems Approach to Safer 

Roadways.” ITE Journal (Institute of Transportation Engineers).

Mackie, H, G Hawley, R Scott, and A Woodward. (2017). Research Report 606 Towards a safe system for cycling. NZ Transport 

Agency.

Malin, Fanny and Juha Luoma. (2020). “Effects of speed display signs on driving speed at pedestrian crossings on collector 

streets.” Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Volume 74 433-438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

trf.2020.09.004.

Milton, Karen, Michael Kelly, Graham Baker, and Claire Cleland. (2021). “Use of natural experimental studies to evaluate 

20mph speed limits in two major UK cities.” Journal of Transport & Health. 

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2016). “Global Street Design Guide.” https://globaldesigningcities.org/

publication/global-street-design-guide/.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2019). “Don’t Give Up at the Intersection: Designing All Ages and 

Abilities Bicycle Crossings.” https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/NACTO_Dont-Give-Up-at-theIntersection.pdf.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2020). “City Limits: Setting Safe Speed Limits on Urban Streets.” 

https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/NACTO_CityLimits_Spreads.pdf.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2013). Urban Street Design Guide.

National Association of City Transportation Officials. (2014). Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (2021). Guide for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Alternative and Other 

Intersections and Interchanges. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26072.
56

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2017). Crash Data Improvement Program Guide.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2021). “Traffic Safety Facts: 2019 Data – Rural/Urban Comparison of Motor 

Vehicle Traffic Fatalities.” https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813206.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2022a). “Fatality Analysis Reporting System.” https://www.nhtsa.gov/

research-data/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2022b). Overview of motor vehicle crashes in 2020. Report No. DOT HS 813. 

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266.

New York City Department of Transportation. (2014). Protected Bicycle Lanes in NYC. http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/

downloads/pdf/2014-09-03-bicycle-path-data-analysis.pdf.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (n.d.). Vision Zero. https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/visionzero.cfm.

PIARC (World Road Association). (2019). Road Safety Manual: Recommendations from the World Road Association.

Road to Zero Coalition. (n.d.). Safe System. https://www.ite.org/technical-resources/topics/safe-systems/.

Roadway Safety Foundation. (n.d.). United States Road Assessment Program. http://www.usrap.org/.

Rowe, K. (2013). Bikenomics: Measuring the Economic Impacts of Bicycle facilities on Neighborhood Business Districts. https://

docs.google.com/file/d/0B0xHj6OM3QVWMUxScjZuMndxVkk/edit?resourcekey=0-cOzVrKvk5iqwUGfo4n3wzg.

Sanders, Rebecca et al. (2020). NCHRP Research Report 926: Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/25808.

Schepers, Paul, Gord Lovegrove, and Marco Helbich. (2019). “Urban form and road safety: Public and active transport 

enable high levels of road safety.” In Integrating Human Health into Urban and Transport Planning. Springer International 

Publishing AG.

Schwartz, Samuel. (2015). Street Smart: The Rise of Cities and the Fall of Cars. New York, New York: Public Affairs.

Sharpin, Anna Bray, Subha Ranjan Banerjee, Claudia Adriazola-Steil, and Ben Welle. (2017). The Need for (Safe) Speed: 4 

Surprising Ways Slower Driving Creates Better Cities. https://www.wri.org/insights/need-safe-speed-4-surprising-waysslower-driving-creates-better-cities.

Smart Growth America. (2015). Safer Streets, Stronger Economies: Complete Streets Project Outcomes from Across the Country. 

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/safer-streets-stronger-economies.pdf.

Smart Growth America and National Complete Streets Coalition. (2022). “Dangerous by Design 2022.” 

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Dangerous-By-Design-2022-v3.pdf.

State of Washington. (2019). Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019: Zero Deaths and Zero Serious Injuries by 2030. 

http://targetzero.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf.

The White House. (2021). Executive Order On Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the 

Federal Government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-orderadvancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/.

Thomas, Libby, Laura Sandt, Charlie Zegeer, Wesley Kumfer, Katy Lang, Bo Lan, Zachary Horowitz, Andrew Butsick, Joseph 

Toole, and Robert J. Schneider. (2018). NCHRP Research Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis. National 

Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.

org/10.17226/25255.
57

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Torbic, Darren J., Jessica M. Hutton, Kim Kolody Silverman, Douglas W. Harwood. (2020). Guide for Quantitative Approaches to 

Systemic Safety Analysis. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26032.

Transportation Alternatives. (2012). East Village Shoppers Study: A Snapshot of Travel and Spending Patterns of Residents and 

Visitors in the East Village. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cab9d9b65a707a9b36f4b6c/t/5f07876df2136a49cf831

10a/1594328943620/EV_Shopper_Study.pdf.

Turner, Blair, Rob Partridge, Shane Turner, Bruce Corben, Jeremy Woolley, Chris Stokes, Jennie Oxley, Karen Stephan, Lisa 

Steinmetz, and Phuong Chau. (2017). Safe System Infrastructure on Mixed Use Arterials. Sydney: Austroads Ltd.

United Kingdom Department of Transport. (2022, January). The Highway Code: 8 changes you need to know from 29 January 

2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-highway-code-8-changes-you-need-to-know-from-29-january-2022.

United State Department of Transportation. (2015). Complete Streets. https://www.transportation.gov/mission/health/

complete-streets#:~:text=Complete%20Streets%20are%20streets%20designed,bicyclists%2C%20or%20public%20

transportation%20riders.

United States Code. (2022). 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15). https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title23-secti

on148&num=0&edition=prelim.

United States Department of Transportation. (2022). National Roadway Safety Strategy. https://www.transportation.gov/sites/

dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety-Strategy.pdf.

United States Road Assessment Program. (n.d.). WHAT IS USRAP? http://www.usrap.org/what-usrap.

Ville de Grenoble. (2015). Ville apaisée: Grenoble à 30 km/h depuis le 1er Janvier 2016. https://city30.brussels/other-30-citiesgrenoble-france.

Vision Zero Network. (2018). Vision Zero Core Elements. https://visionzeronetwork.org/core-elements/.

Waldheim, Nicole, Elizabeth Wemple, and Joseph Fish. (2015). Applying Safety Data and Analysis to Performance-Based 

Transportation Planning. Washington, DC: FHWA Office of Safety. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/42814.

Washington State Department of Transportation. (2019). Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019: Zero Deaths and 

Zero Serious Injuries by 2030. https://targetzero.com/.

Welle, Ben, Wei Li, Claudia Adriazola-Steil, Robin King, Marta Obelheiro, Claudio Sarmiento and Qingnan Liu. (2015). Cities 

Safer by Design: Urban Design Recommendations for Healthier Cities, Fewer Traffic Fatalities. Washington, DC: World 

Resources Institute. https://www.wri.org/research/cities-safer-design.

Welle, Ben, Qingnan Liu, Wei Li, Claudia Adriazola-Steil, Robert King, Claudio Sarmiento, and Marta Obelheiro. (2015). Cities 

Safer by Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street Design. Washington, DC: World 

Resources Institute.

World Resources Institute. (2015). Cities Safer by Design: Urban Design Recommendations for Healthier Cities, Fewer Traffic 

Fatalities. July. https://wrirosscities.org/research/publication/cities-safer-design-urban-design-recommendationshealthier-cities-fewer-traffic.

World Resources Institute. (2018). Sustainable & Safe : A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. https://wrirosscities.org/

research/publication/cities-safer-design-urban-design-recommendations-healthier-cities-fewer-traffic.

World Road Association. (2019). Road Safety Manual: 4. The Safe System Approach. October. https://roadsafety.piarc.org/en/

road-safety-management/safe-system-approach.

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

59

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

APPENDIX – DETAILED CASE STUDIES 

 OF NOTEWORTHY PRACTICES

Vision Zero Shifts Austin Towards the Safe System 

Approach –Austin, TX, USA

Key Successes

Although many aspects of the Vision Zero program in Austin, 

Texas, are early in implementation, initial data is showing 

positive trends. The Austin city council officially adopted Vision 

Zero as a city policy goal in 2015. Austin’s Vision Zero program 

is constantly monitoring crash data to continuously make 

measurements and changes in service to its goal of eliminating 

serious injuries and fatalities caused by traffic crashes. Some 

key indicators of the Vision Zero program’s impact include the 

following: 

• A 17-percent decrease in serious injury and fatal crashes 

in 2021 compared to the previous 3-year average on 

high-injury roadways that received low-cost engineering 

countermeasures.(1)

• An additional 18-percent reduction in the annual number 

of pedestrian crashes involving left-turning vehicles at 

downtown intersections that received leading pedestrian 

intervals (LPI) in the year following LPI implementation compared with those that did not.(2)

• A 64 percent reduction in the annual number of opposite-direction, left-turn injury crashes at intersections 

with signal timing adjustments compared with the 3 years before implementation.(3)

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Death and serious injury are unacceptable: The city of Austin has a GIS crash database and High Injury Network 

(HIN) to understand where the highest concentration of severe crashes occurs in Austin to help prioritize safety 

strategies and complement the program’s systemic analysis.

Responsibility is shared: The Austin Vision Zero Leadership Council meets approximately every 6 weeks to 

provide guidance and direction on Vision Zero program priorities and initiatives in the city. The Leadership 

Council includes cross collaborative departments and partner agencies, including the Texas Department of 

Transportation (TxDOT), the Travis County Attorney and District Attorney Offices, Austin-Travis County EMS, 

Austin Fire Department, Austin Police Department, Austin Independent School District, Capital Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority, city of Austin Housing and Planning Department, Austin Municipal Court, FHWA, and 

Austin Public Health.(4 )

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: City of Austin n.d.

Figure 1. Screenshot. Vision Zero ad in 

Austin, Texas, USA.

Help Austin reach zero traffic deaths

AustintexAs.Gov/visionZero
60

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Safety is proactive: The city of Austin is prioritizing safety by applying system-wide changes to road design, such 

as LPIs and improving street lighting. Austin is also lowering speed limits system-wide and on urban arterials. 

Background

After an all-time high number of fatal crashes in 2015, Austin established a goal of zero traffic deaths and serious 

injuries in 2015 and adopted its first Vision Zero Action Plan in 2016. Within the first few years of the program, the 

city took a system-wide approach to zero traffic fatalities and severe injuries. The city updated its Vision Zero 

Action Plan in 2019 as part of its adoption of the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP), which included an updated 

set of policies and actions specifically modeled around a Safe Systems Approach.(5)

 Importantly, the very first goal 

within the ASMP is to “prioritize the protection of human life over all else in the planning, design, and operation of 

Austin’s transportation network.”(6)

 Source: City of Austin n.d.

Figure 2. Image. Vision Zero Austin mural. 

Thanks to the strong support from the city Manager’s Office and city Council, Austin Transportation Department 

(ATD) created the Transportation Safety Officer position in 2019, and shortly thereafter added three additional 

full-time positions to support the planning, analysis, and communication needs of the Vision Zero program. After a 

review of the existing practices relating to resource prioritization within ATD, the city identified a need to improve 

the program’s data analysis capabilities. This led to a revamped Vision Zero program in 2019, working to prioritize the 

development of new tools to address data challenges and to help support the delivery of new safety initiatives. 

Additionally, the Austin Vision Zero Leadership Council includes cross collaborative departments and partner 

agencies, including TxDOT, the Travis County Attorney and District Attorney Offices, Austin-Travis County EMS, 

Austin Fire Department, Austin Police Department, Austin Independent School District, Capital Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority, city of Austin Housing and Planning Department, Austin Municipal Court, FHWA, and 

Austin Public Health.
61

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Implementation

Austin’s commitment to the Safe System Approach, along with robust analysis tools, has helped the city expand 

the depth and breadth of traffic safety initiatives that are contributing to safety improvements across Austin. In 

recent years, the city has been able to implement a variety of layered safety initiatives as part of the overall Vision 

Zero program quickly and effectively, many focused on their high-injury network and urban core. 

The Vision Zero Program structure in Austin is proactively addressing high-risk locations to prevent fatal and 

serious injury crashes as the top priority. This goes beyond the traditional hot-spot approach to roadway safety to 

also address safety risks where similar roadway conditions exist. The program uses the most recent 5 years of fatal 

and serious injury crash data to monitor crashes and how safety improvements are working toward a goal of zero 

traffic deaths.

Austin’s Vision Zero Program includes a comprehensive GIS crash database, which allows them to review the data 

to prioritize safety initiatives and investments at locations with high concentrations of fatal and severe crashes. 

Crash trends are available via an online viewer, providing increased data transparency and access. The viewer is a 

tool for engaging with and building the capacity of traffic safety advocates in Austin.(7 ) The viewer has been 

critical for ATD engineers evaluating crash patterns to make recommendations for engineering countermeasures. 

This can be crucial for quick, proactive engineering fixes along the high-injury network and other locations.

 Source: City of Austin n.d.(b).

Figure 3. Image. Temporary signage identifying Cameron Road as a high-injury roadway to raise awareness 

until safety improvements are constructed. 

The city of Austin has focused its early Vision Zero improvements on low-cost and high-impact engineering 

countermeasures that can be deployed at hundreds of locations across the city. Vision Zero staff identified 13 

high-injury roadway sections that had a high concentration of both historical crashes and risk factors. The highinjury roadway sections total approximately 31 miles and had 350 serious injuries or fatalities in the 5 years 

preceding the 2019 update of the Vision Zero plan. These roadway sections received a package of effective, 

low-cost engineering countermeasures paired with safety signing and targeted enforcement to deter dangerous 

driving behaviors. Some of the low-cost countermeasures included traffic signal timing, visibility enhancements 

like retroreflective backplates on traffic signals, and refreshed crosswalk markings. 
62

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

In 2019, the city implemented a systemic approach to improving pedestrian safety in the urban core. The city 

implemented leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) at 110 intersections in downtown Austin using the Safe System 

Approach.(8 ) In the year following implementation, data showed an additional 18-percent reduction in annual 

pedestrian crashes involving left-turning vehicles at downtown intersections that received LPIs versus those 

that did not.(9)

 There was also an additional 54-percent reduction in annual pedestrian KAB (combined fatalities, 

serious injuries, and non-incapacitating injuries) crashes involving left-turning vehicles at these locations. The city 

is using the experience from the downtown LPIs to inform broader deployment of LPIs across Austin, with a focus 

on locations where there is a high risk of crashes and high pedestrian volumes, rather than only relying on crash 

history at each location. Additionally, approximately half of the downtown traffic signals with LPIs have audible 

pedestrian signals (APS) that also provide accessible signal improvements. Over the next year, the city is using 

2020 Bond funds to install APS at all downtown signalized crossings and at many other signalized crossings 

across the city. 

Austin also focused on lower cost signal timing improvements to address intersection crashes. Using both 

systemic safety and Safe System Approaches, staff reviewed data to understand the time-of-day and day-of-week 

periods where crashes occurred most frequently and the types of turning movements that led to crashes at 

intersections. city staff used those findings to make the appropriate safety improvements through signal timing 

based on the intersection context. These improvements included adding protected-only phasing, installing 

flashing yellow arrows, and installing more prominent signage or signal heads. Early data shows a 64-percent 

reduction in the annual number of opposite-direction, left-turn crashes resulting in injuries at intersections where 

signalization strategies have been implemented, which means approximately 18 fewer people were injured or 

killed per year at these locations.(10 ) From this early implementation, city staff are working on updating signal 

standards to incorporate the Safe System Approach into signalized intersection decision-making processes. 

 Source: City of Austin n.d.

Figure 4. Image. Separated bike lane to sidewalk transition that separates users in space in Austin. 
63

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The city further incorporates the Safe System Approach through Austin Transportation’s Speed Management 

Program and numerous other systemic approaches to safety. Between 2013–2017, speeding was a contributing 

factor in at least 24 percent of the fatal crashes in Austin.(11)

 Notably, Austin has lowered speed limits citywide and 

deployed more traffic calming, which includes reduction of speed limits to 35 mph or less on most urban core 

arterials. Crashes along curves in Austin involving one motor vehicle are a common fatal and serious injury crash 

type and the city is making safety improvements along curves at more than 40 locations. The city is installing 

chevrons, warning signs, flashing beacons, LED devices, raised pavement markings, striping, rumble strips, and 

advisory speeds along curves to increase attentiveness and awareness. The city is also focused on creating a 

complete bicycle network across Austin using the Safe System Approach to determine the safest facility by 

separating bicyclists from vehicles in space and time.

Outcomes

The proactive nature of this effort is in alignment with the Safe System Approach. Consistent data monitoring and 

adaptation is a key element of Austin’s Vision Zero Program. The Vision Zero team proactively identifies, addresses 

risks, and applies appropriate changes to the design of their streets with the understanding that humans can and 

will make mistakes.

Although many of the engineering efforts are early on in their implementation phases, this proactive, data-driven 

approach has proven to be an efficient use of resources by providing city staff with the tools to quickly identify 

priority locations and implement appropriate countermeasures. The city regularly reviews data and provides GIS 

dashboards to measure safety changes based on improvements being made as part of the Vision Zero program. 

Early data surrounding the implementation strategies is positive and is continually being monitored by the city.

 Source: City of Austin 2022c.

Figure 5. Map. Funded Speed Management Program projects overlaid on percent population non-white. 
64

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The city of Austin has recognized the disparities in traffic deaths and severe injuries among racial and ethnic 

groups, and that the city’s historical transportation and land-use decisions have played a substantial role 

in causing and perpetuating racial inequities. Understanding that Black or African American people are 

overrepresented among serious injury and fatal crash victims by a factor of 2.2 compared with their share of the 

Austin population, for example, is a crucial part of reforming the outcomes of the city’s Vision Zero Program.(12)

The city’s Speed Management Program identifies traffic calming projects based on citywide needs, and explicitly 

incorporates equity criteria into the scoring methodology when identifying project locations. 

Additional Information

The city of Austin’s 2016 Mobility Bond provided approximately $137 million to local mobility projects, which 

includes funds designated for the Vision Zero Program. Approximately $15 million of the funding is designated 

specifically for fatality reduction strategies related to intersection safety and Vision Zero.(13)

The city of Austin uses in-house data analysis created through the Vision Zero program to identify future funding 

opportunities and leverages funding from the TxDOT Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) to fund 

safety improvements.

For additional information please contact Lewis Leff, Transportation Safety Officer, at lewis.leff@austintexas.gov

or Joel Meyer, Vision Zero Program Manager for the city of Austin, at joel.meyer@austintexas.gov.

References

1 City of Austin. (2021a). Vision Zero Analytics: High-Injury 

Roadways See Reduction in Severe Crashes in 2021. https://

www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Transportation/

Vision%20Zero/VZAnalytics_HIRs_Dec%202021.pdf.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid.

4 City of Austin. (2021b). Vision Zero Update. Last edited 

4/13/2021. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/

files/images/Transportation/Vision%20Zero%202021%20

Update%20report.pdf.

5 City of Austin. (n.d.). Austin Strategic Mobility Plan. Accessed 

on 7/1/2022. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/

files/Transportation/ASMP/ASMP_Chapters/AdoptedASMP_

Chapter1_Safety.pdf.

6 Ibid.

7 City of Austin. (2022a). Vision Zero: Zero Deaths, Zero Serious 

Injuries, Zero Excuses. Last modified May 23, 2022. https://

visionzero.austin.gov/viewer/.

8 Vidal, Gabriela. (2020). Austin Implements ‘Leading Pedestrian 

Intervals’ to Improve Downtown Safety. CBS Austin, January 6, 

2020. https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/austin-implementsleading-pedestrian-intervals-to-improve-downtown-trafficsafety.

9 City of Austin. (2021c). Vision Zero Analytics: Pedestrian Head 

Starts Downtown Show Promising Early Results. https://www.

austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Transportation/

Vision%20Zero/VZAnalytics_LPIs_Dec%202021.pdf.

10 Austin Transportation Department. (2022b). Signalization 

Strategies Reduce Crashes Involving Left Turning Vehicles. https://

www.austintexas.gov/sites/default/files/files/Transportation/

Vision%20Zero/VZAnalytics_LeftTurn_Jan%202022.pdf.

11 City of Austin. (n.d.(b)). Austin Department of Transportation 

Speed Management. Accessed June 2022. https://www.

austintexas.gov/department/speed-management.

12 City of Austin. (2022c). Vision Zero: Safe for All. Last 

modified May 10, 2022. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/

stories/4a57b61a0dc9444a9d117dc69f3a898e.

13 City of Austin. (2022d). Austin Mobility Bonds: Local Mobility 

Program. https://data.austintexas.gov/stories/s/Local-MobilityProgram-Page/9jsz-agwf/
65

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Vision Zero Implementation on Arterial Roadways 

in the Downtown –Boulder, CO, USA

Key Successes

While Boulder, CO, has reached zero roadway fatalities in some years, they are also implementing many other 

noteworthy projects through their Vision Zero program. The city is taking a concerted approach to creating more 

Complete Streets that have space for all types of road users. Some key indications of the city of Boulder’s Vision 

Zero program successes include: 

• Boulder achieved zero traffic fatalities in both 2015 and 2017.( 1)

• Between 2015 and 2019, Boulder saw a 13 percent decrease in total crashes.(2)

• Support at all levels to implement large-scale roadway redesigns like East Arapahoe Avenue.(3)

Source: City of Boulder 2018. 

Figure 1. Illustration. Existing configuration (left) and vision (right) for changes to East Arapahoe Avenue, 

including bus rapid transit lanes and separated bike lanes. 

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Humans make mistakes: In the city of Boulder’s annual Safe Streets Report, one of the guiding principles 

is to design roadways with separated bike lanes and wider sidewalks, which is happening on 30th Street, to 

accommodate mistakes people may make on roadways.(4 , 5)

Humans are vulnerable: The city lowered the default speed limit on local streets to 20 mph through the “20 is 

Plenty” project and evaluation.(6)

Safety is proactive: The city is proactively installing safety countermeasures by making data-driven engineering 

changes. On three arterials through the center of the city (Broadway, 28th, and 30th Streets), the city has focused 

on safety improvements that separate users in space and time, increase visibility, and reduce speeds. 
66

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Background

Although the city of Boulder began reporting data on Vision Zero in 2009, it was formally adopted as a part of 

its Transportation Master Plan in 2014 and serves as a proactive, data-driven approach to increasing the level 

of safety of their streets.(7)

 Boulder has a national reputation as a walkable and bikeable city, and one of its core 

community values is ensuring safe travel for people of all modes. Between 2009 and 2020, Boulder saw 675 

serious injuries and fatalities in crashes. For crash data analyzed for the period between 2018 through 2020, the 

city found that 67 percent of all crashes with severe injuries or fatalities occurred on arterial roadways, so Boulder 

knew it was crucial to shift its focus to those roadways.(8)

 Boulder emphasizes in its Vision Zero program that each 

of these 675 victims are not just numbers, but family members and friends, and their injuries or deaths have a 

strong impact on the community. 

Source: City of Boulder n.d.

Figure 2. Graphic. Excerpt of different left-turn signal-timing phases being deployed in Boulder to reduce leftturn crashes. The city is implemented flashing yellow arrows (FYA) as a quick-build improvement.

With a holistic, systemwide approach, the city of Boulder continues to set benchmarks and track progress 

through its Vision Zero Action Plan as well as the identification and implementation of the Low-Stress Walk and 

Bike Network Plan, which includes phased implementation of recommended bicycle and pedestrian facilities 

on all roadway classifications within the city.(9)

 Another way the city works to apply this phased implementation 

approach is through its Vision Zero Innovation Program (VZIP), which works to install innovative quick-build 

improvements at a lower cost. The VZIP program is crucial when it comes to the city of Boulder’s application of 

the Safe System Approach as it allows for staff to be proactive when implementing improvements such as curb 

extensions, traffic calming elements, and pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments. Through VZIP, projects were 

deployed along six corridors and 20 other unique locations throughout Boulder in Fiscal Years 2020–2021, and five 

were in Boulder’s urban core.(10)

 In addition, Boulder is pairing and layering countermeasures based on risk factor 

assessment to implement safety countermeasures, such as signal timing changes (e.g., flashing yellow arrow, 

leading pedestrian intervals, no right turn on red, etc.), grade-separated facilities, and business access and transit 

(BAT) lanes in Boulder, commonly referred to as bus rapid transit (BRT) lanes. 

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LEFT-TURN PHASING?

Protected Permitted

Why Do We Use a Flashing Yellow Arrow (FYA)?

Protected: you turn left while opposing traffic is stopped

Permitted: you turn left when there is a gap in opposing traffic (vehicles, cyclists, pedestrians)

In some cases the City uses a combination of protected and permitted 

operations at the same signal, and sometimes the signal phasing varies by time 

of the day to accommodate varying levels of usage.

Research has shown that a Flashing Yellow Arrow is safer than a green ball due to its color (yellow= caution!) 

and due to the flashing movement, which catches the eye and the attention of motorists. The FYA is now 

the federal standard and is generally preferred over the use of a green ball to indicate permitted 

left-turn movements.

The city typically uses protected phasing under certain geometric conditions (e.g., limited sight distance) 

or if there is a already a crash trend at a a particular intersection. The city also uses protected-only phasing 

proactively to reduce potential crashes in instances where there are high volumes of bicyclists and/or 

pedestrians or higher speed vehicles regularly using the intersection.
67

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

More recently, the city of Boulder announced the Core Arterial Network (CAN) system, where staff is using a databased approach to create a connected system of protected bicycle lanes, intersection improvements, pedestrian 

facilities, and transit facility upgrades that will work to prevent severe crashes and improve safety and comfort 

levels for all users.(11)

Implementation

The city of Boulder’s CAN approach identified 13 individual corridors on its arterial roadways to implement 

mobility enhancements and proactive safety countermeasures. Looking to create a safe and connected system of 

multimodal facilities along these high-risk arterial roadways, the city council elevated work on the CAN approach 

as one of its 12 priorities for city department efforts. Both Boulder’s Vision Zero Program and CAN approach 

recognize that although crashes may not have occurred, the concentration of crashes and overlapping risk factors 

are common in the identified corridors. Working to proactively improve the safety of these corridors, the city has 

several implementation projects in various phases of completion at intersections on or along Boulder’s arterials, 

including the following:(12)

 

28th Street

• Addition (and/or repurposing of existing general-purpose lanes) of BRT lanes in both directions

• Completion of the gaps in the existing multi-use path along 28th Street to provide a continuous, 

10-foot-wide facility

• Addition of raised driveway crossings along the multi-use path

• Installation of colored pavement and green conflict markings in high-conflict areas

• Installation of street trees and landscape buffers between the street and multi-use path

30th Street

• Lengthened pedestrian clearance times

• Conversions of left-turn operations to flashing yellow arrows

• Adjustment of left-turn phasing from protected/permitted to protected-only during either peak travel 

times or always 

• Installation of vertically separated bike lanes 

• Construction of underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists, along with a fully protected intersection

Broadway

• Conversion of left-turn operations to flashing yellow arrows 

• Addition of more signalized right turn lanes to avoid conflicts with a multi-use path 

• Installation of pedestrian head-starts

• Rebuilding of traffic signals to provide protected left-turn phasing
68

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: City of Boulder 2022d.

Figure 3. Image. Rendering of 30th Street and Colorado Avenue intersection improvements (protected 

intersection, underpasses) under construction. 

Outcomes

The work being done in Boulder applies the Safe System Approach to recognize that humans make mistakes and 

uses interdisciplinary resources to proactively improve the design of arterials to accommodate these mistakes. 

Like many small or mid-size cities, the arterials in Boulder run right through the core of the city and serve as major 

motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian thoroughfares. With an abundance of mixed-use development occurring 

along these roadways, it is important to accommodate and ensure the safety of all users. Boulder is looking at 

providing safe accommodations for all modes by providing separated facilities. 

Many of these improvements are early in their implementation, but preliminary evaluations are showing dramatic 

decreases in crash rates at various intersections on these arterials from countermeasures such as flashing yellow 

arrow and red-light running cameras. In addition to the CAN program, Boulder is also working to update the city’s 

design and construction standards such that the technical standards for designing and constructing projects 

is aligned with its Vision Zero goals.(13)

 Boulder is continually working to enhance community awareness and 

engagement, have utmost transparency, and refine its performance metrics.
69

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Additional Information

Many of the projects completed in Boulder have been funded through Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP) funds. For additional information, please contact Devin Joslin, Principal Traffic Engineer, for the city of 

Boulder at joslind@bouldercolorado.gov, or visit https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/vision-zero and https://

bouldercolorado.gov/services/safe-streets-report for the 2022 Safe Streets Report.

References

1 City of Boulder. (2022a). Vision Zero Dashboard. https://

bouldercolorado.gov/news/city-boulder-releasesinteractive-crash-data-dashboard.

2 City of Boulder. (2022b). Vision Zero Boulder Safe 

Streets Report: 2018-2020 Crash Data Summary. https://

bouldercolorado.gov/media/7423/download?inline.

3 City of Boulder. (2018). East Arapahoe Transportation Plan. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/east-arapahoetransportation-plan.

4 City of Boulder. (2022c). Vision Zero Boulder Safe Streets 

Report: Key Findings. https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/

safe-streets-report#section-13832.

5 City of Boulder. (2022d). 30th St Corridor Multimodal 

Improvements Project. https://bouldercolorado.gov/

projects/30th-st-corridor-multimodal-improvementsproject.

6 City of Boulder. (2022e). Evaluation of 20 is Plenty: Summary 

Report. https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/7440/

download?inline.

7 City of Boulder. (2019). Transportation Master Plan. https://

bouldercolorado.gov/projects/transportation-master-plan.

8 City of Boulder. (2022b). Vision Zero Boulder Safe 

Streets Report: 2018-2020 Crash Data Summary. https://

bouldercolorado.gov/media/7423/download?inline.

9 City of Boulder. (2022f). Transportation Safety – Vision Zero. 

https://bouldercolorado.gov/services/vision-zero.

10 City of Boulder. (2021). Vision Zero Innovation Program. Last 

modified November 23, 2021. https://bouldercolorado.gov/

media/6268/download?inline.

11 City of Boulder. (2022g). Boulder’s Core Arterial Network.

https://bouldercolorado.gov/guide/core-arterial-network.

12 City of Boulder. (2021). Vision Zero Innovation Program. Last 

modified November 23, 2021. https://bouldercolorado.gov/

media/6268/download?inline.

13 City of Boulder. (2022h). Transportation Design Standards 

Update. https://bouldercolorado.gov/projects/

transportation-design-standards-update

71

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Cambridge Combines Planning and Projects that 

Increase Safety for All – Cambridge, MA, USA

Key Successes

In 2018, the city of Cambridge, MA, began applying the Safe System Approach and released its Vision Zero 

Action Plan.(1)

 The city’s approach to safe mobility has focused on increasing multimodal options. In the last few 

years, Cambridge has worked to increase bicycling infrastructure and has seen an increase in bicycle use and 

improvements in safety. The success of the Safe System Approach in Cambridge can be seen in the city’s Western 

Avenue project, which helped spur the city’s increased focus on bicycle facilities as a safety strategy. Some key 

indications of the city of Cambridge’s Vision Zero program successes include the following:(2)

 

• Western Avenue has seen speed reductions of 25 percent and fewer severe injury crashes while doubling to 

quadrupling the number of people bicycling and walking after separated bicycle lanes were installed.

• An additional 47 lane miles of bicycle infrastructure from 2004 to 2019 were added and bicycle ridership 

increased by 212 percent over the same period.

• A 36-percent decrease in bicycle crash frequency rates as bicycle miles traveled increased by 190 percent in 

15 years.

 Source: City of Cambridge 2017.

Figure 1. Image. Bicycle amenities in Cambridge. 
72

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Humans make mistakes: The city of Cambridge is designing facilities to separate users in space so that when 

someone makes a mistake it does not result in death or serious injury. Cambridge has focused on building bicycle 

facilities that are demonstrably safer and more comfortable for all ages and abilities throughout the city. The city’s 

Bicycle Network Vision identifies specific corridors for separate bike lanes.(3)

Safety is proactive: By using a level-of-comfort analysis, which correlates to a level-of-stress analysis, to inform 

the vision for its bicycle network, the city is focused on improving safety at locations with crash-risk factors and 

where increasing bicycling is needed, instead of waiting for crashes to occur at specific locations.(4)

Responsibility is shared: One action item in the city of Cambridge’s Vision Zero Plan is establishing the 

Cambridge Community Response Network (CCRN) which includes the public health department, the police 

department, the department of human service programs, peace commission, emergency communications, and 

the public schools, to respond to the immediate and long-term impacts of trauma on a community.(5)

 Trauma 

includes traffic fatalities and serious injuries, and the CCRN shares responsibility in responding after an incident 

and providing input on roadway design to prevent future incidents.

Background

Cambridge is a dense and growing city near Boston, home to four higher education institutions (Harvard 

University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Lesley University, and Hult International Business School), 

and a hub of innovation and scientific research. From 2010 to 2015, Cambridge took an opportunity to combine 

sewer replacement and reconfiguration work on Western Avenue with installation of a sidewalk-level separated 

bicycle lane, curb extensions, raised crosswalks, and other measures to meet community goals of ensuring the 

corridor is safe for all users and has the “appropriate traffic speed.”(6)

 The Western Avenue project was a $15 million 

sewer upgrade and road reconstruction project. By its completion, the project was well-loved by city residents 

and received national accolades such as the #1 Best New Bike Lane of 2015 by the nonprofit organization People 

for Bikes.

 Source: Anthony and Halvorson | Tighe & Bond Studio n.d.

Figure 2. Image. Western Avenue Reconstruction Project with sidewalk-level separated bicycle lane 

and curb extensions.
73

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

The Western Avenue project demonstrated the value of incorporating high-quality bicycle facilities into roadway 

projects on major streets. The project helped spur an increased focus on bicycle facilities as part of the city’s 

traffic safety strategy. This increased focus is reflected in the 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan, which, guided by its 

goal of creating a “transportation system that is safe for users of all ages and abilities,” was the city’s first Bicycle 

Plan to propose a 115-mile Bicycle Network Vision of low-stress bikeways such as off-street paths, separated 

bicycle lanes, and low-volume low-speed streets which connected commercial areas and key destinations.(7)

 The 

Plan also made building new facilities, as identified in the Bicycle Network Vision, a key goal moving forward.

To elevate the role of public safety in transportation, in 2016, Cambridge adopted Vision Zero and subsequently 

implemented citywide reductions in speed limits in conjunction with newly adopted State regulations allowing 

lower speed limits in urbanized areas of Massachusetts. In 2019, the Cambridge city Council adopted a firstof-its-kind Cycling Safety Ordinance, which requires the city to incorporate separated bicycle lanes identified 

in the Bicycle Network Vision whenever those streets that have been designated for greater separation are up 

for reconstruction.(8)

 This was seen as a key step towards eliminating vulnerable road users’ severe injuries and 

fatalities in Cambridge.(9)

Implementation

From the implementation of the Western Avenue bicycle infrastructure, Cambridge has continued incorporating 

groundbreaking practices that put safety first at the project, program, and policy level while building out the 

city’s bicycle network:

• Using Bicycle Level-of-Comfort (LOC) analysis to build a network vision that is safe, comfortable, 

and connected. In its bike plan, Cambridge employs an LOC analysis calibrated to the unique 

circumstances of the city to identify the streets that are safe and comfortable for all ages and abilities and 

the gaps in the network created by stressful and unsafe roads.(10)

• Codifying into local law the use of road reconstruction opportunities for bicycle network 

implementation. The Cycling Safety Ordinance adopted by the Cambridge city Council in 2019 requires 

the city to build out the 25 miles of separated bicycle lanes identified in the Bicycle Network Vision 

whenever those streets are up for reconstruction.(11)

 A 2020 amendment to the ordinance codified a sixyear timetable for implementation and the option of using quick-build materials to meet deadlines when 

reconstruction isn’t planned.(12)

• Prioritizing the implementation of bicycle infrastructure that is safer by reducing vehicle speeds 

and providing separation where possible. As a result of the Cambridge Bicycle Plan and the Cycling 

Safety Ordinance, Cambridge has primarily focused on installing new bicycle infrastructure along the 

corridors identified in the Bicycle Network Vision using treatments that create safer conditions for 

everyone by changing the geometry of the street. River Street, the eastbound half of the one-way couplet 

with Western Avenue, was slated to start reconstruction in 2022, and it, too, will have the sidewalk-level 

separated bicycle lane, curb extensions, a bus lane, and other countermeasures that have proven effective 

at keeping vehicle traffic closer to the posted speed limit.(13)

 This will create safer conditions for all people, 

including those who walk, bicycle, and take transit.

• Establishing a rapid response protocol which includes the Cambridge Police Department. The rapid 

response team completes a site visit at the locations of any fatality or serious injury within 3 business days 

of the crash. The team evaluates and analyzes the crash site, conditions, and known details of each incident 

to make recommendations to the city for action, including measures such as street design changes.(14)
74

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Outcomes

The city of Cambridge was able to leverage its success with the Western Avenue project to increase focus on highquality bicycle facilities as a safety strategy. The city’s emphasis on safety includes a bicycle network composed 

of off-street paths, separated bicycle lanes, and low-speed low-volume streets connecting key origins and 

destinations in its Bicycle Network Vision. This emphasis, along with implementing other measures in line with 

the city’s Vision Zero commitment, may be behind the reduced severity of injury among bicyclists in reported 

crashes. Since the 2015 Cambridge Bicycle Plan, 67 percent of the separated bicycle lane miles built in the city 

were built on streets that were part of the Bicycle Network Vision. At the network level, the city has expanded 

the number of miles of bicycle facilities from 70 miles in 2014 to 94 miles in 2019 (a 34-percent increase), which 

coincided with an increase of over 25 percent in the number of people bicycling over the same period. While the 

number of people bicycling and miles traveled has gone up, the number of bicycle crashes has not, which means 

that the rate of crashes has gone down. 

In its 2020 Bicycle Plan update,(15)

 the city of Cambridge estimates that the bicycle crash frequency rate in 

Cambridge has decreased by 36 percent from 2004 to 2019 while bicycle miles traveled have gone up 190 percent 

over the same period. The 2020 Bicycle Plan reports that of all bicycle crashes reported, non-incapacitating injuries 

dropped from 45 percent during 2004–2012 to 8.8 percent during 2015–2019, and incapacitating injuries (where the 

bicyclist was not able to move post-crash) dropped from 5.2 percent to 1.2 percent over the same period. Conversely, 

crashes where no injury was reported by the bicyclist went up from 18.3 percent to 49.8 percent.

A post-construction evaluation report for Western Avenue completed in 2019 suggests that providing grade 

and buffer-separated facilities that separated those walking and rolling from the vehicle traffic may be partially 

responsible for the reduced severity of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. Using EMS calls as a proxy for 

crash severity, the Western Avenue Post Construction Evaluation Report found that the number of EMS calls to attend 

bicyclists and pedestrians post-crash on Western Avenue has gone down from six to four in the two years before 

and after reconstruction despite a doubling to a quadrupling of bicyclists and pedestrians on the corridor after the 

reconstruction. This suggests the overall severe crash rate on Western Avenue has decreased. The report also found 

that vehicle speeds have also decreased by 25 percent, with the 85th-percentile speed at 32 mph before and 28 mph 

after reconstruction, closer to the 25 mph posted speed limit which was unchanged.(16)

 The success of projects like 

Western Avenue and the clear vision provided by the Cambridge Bicycle Plan provided the impetus for the city’s 

Cycling Safety Ordinance, which has guided the construction of over 6 miles of separated bicycle lanes since its 

enactment in 2019, with an additional 4.5 miles in various stages of planning and construction (as of this writing).(17)

 

Additional Information

For more information about the Cambridge Bicycle Plan, contact Cara Seiderman, Transportation Program 

Manager with the city of Cambridge at csneiderman@cambridgema.gov. For more information specifically about 

Western Avenue, contact Bill Deignan at wdeignan@cambridgema.gov.
75

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

References 

1 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

2 City of Cambridge. (2015). Cambridge Bicycle Plan: Toward 

a Bikeable Future. https://www.cambridgema.gov/CDD/

Transportation/gettingaroundcambridge/bikesincambridge/

bicyclenetworkplan.

3 City of Cambridge. (2021). 2020 Bicycle Network Vision. 

Last modified October 18, 2021. 

https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/

itydevelopment/2020bikeplanupdate/2020bicyclenetworkvision.

4 City of Cambridge. (2022a). Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2020. Last 

modified February 28, 2022. https://www.cambridgema.gov/

Departments/communitydevelopment/2020bikeplanupdate.

5 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

6 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

7 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

8 City of Cambridge. (2022b). Cycling Safety Ordinance. Last 

modified February 10, 2022. https://www.cambridgema.gov/

en/streetsandtransportation/policiesordinancesandplans/

cyclingsafetyordinance.

9 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

10 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

11 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

12 City of Cambridge. (2022c). Second Annual Cycling Safety 

Ordinance Progress Report. https://www.cambridgema.

gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/cyclingsafetyordinance/

cambridgecyclingordinancesecondannualreport.pdf.

13 City of Cambridge. (2022a). Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2020. Last 

modified February 28, 2022. https://www.cambridgema.gov/

Departments/communitydevelopment/2020bikeplanupdate.

14 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf.

15 City of Cambridge. (2022a). Cambridge Bicycle Plan 2020. Last 

modified February 28, 2022. https://www.cambridgema.gov/

Departments/communitydevelopment/2020bikeplanupdate.

16 City of Cambridge. (2019). Post Construction Evaluation Report, 

Western Avenue, Cambridge, MA. https://www.cambridgema.gov/-/

media/Files/CDD/Transportation/Projects/WesternAvenue/Western_

Report_Final_2019_01_18.pdf. 

17 City of Cambridge. (2017). Vision Zero Action Plan. https://www.

cambridgema.gov/-/media/Files/Traffic/visionzerodocuments/

VisionZero_ActionPlan.pdf

77

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Milwaukee Avenue Complete Streets Project – 

Chicago, IL, USA

Key Successes

Following installation of separated bike lanes, pedestrian crossing improvements, and a reduction in the posted 

speed limit, traffic crashes on Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and California Avenue in Chicago, 

IL, declined dramatically for all road users. A comparison between before and after installation traffic crash data 

shows the following:(1)

• A 57-percent reduction in automobile injury crashes

• A 71-percent reduction in bicyclist injury crashes

• Zero pedestrian crashes and zero dooring crashes after the improvements

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Death/serious injury is unacceptable: The city adopted a Vision Zero action plan in 2017.(2 )

Humans are vulnerable/ redundancy is crucial: The plan entailed speed reductions (reduction of posted speed 

limit to 20 mph), separation of road users in space (separated bike lanes).

Responsibility is shared: The Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the city’s 1st Ward worked with 

the local community and business stakeholders to identify a positive redesign of the area.

Background

Milwaukee Avenue is a key diagonal street in the city of Chicago, carrying vehicles, bicycles, scooters, buses, and 

pedestrian traffic. The study corridor covers approximately 0.75 miles of Milwaukee Avenue between Western 

Avenue and California Avenue in the Logan Square neighborhood. Land uses along the corridor are mostly 

residential and commercial, including retail, thrift/discount, restaurant/bar, commercial service, and mixed 

commercial.

In 2017, the city of Chicago’s Vision Zero Action Plan identified Milwaukee Avenue as a high-crash corridor. From 

2012 to 2016, the corridor averaged 94 crashes per year, including 27 injury crashes.(3 ) Pedestrians and bicyclists 

were disproportionally injured in crashes, accounting for two-thirds of all injury crashes. CDOT worked to create 

a safer Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and California Avenue. The goal of the project was to make 

the street more comfortable and accessible for people walking, biking, driving, and using transit. CDOT worked 

with local stakeholders to identify a positive redesign of the area, which considered the corridor’s existing 

conditions, summarized below: (4 )

• Low on-street parking occupancy: A parking survey along the study corridor showed a 46 percent on-street 

parking occupancy on weekdays and a 63 percent on-street parking occupancy on Saturdays. 

• High vehicular speeds: A 24-hour speed study conducted along Milwaukee Avenue showed that 500 

vehicles were driving faster than 30 mph and the top speed was 60 mph.
78

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• Pedestrians and bicyclists disproportionately injured in crashes: From 2012 to 2016, the corridor averaged

94 crashes per year, including 27 injury crashes. Two-thirds of injury crashes involved pedestrians and

bicyclists.

• Large gaps between crosswalks: CDOT had received numerous citizen complaints regarding how difficult

it was to cross Milwaukee Avenue to access businesses and get to the transit stops. There were large

gaps between designated pedestrian crossings along Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and

California Avenue, as shown in Figure 1, the largest gap being 900 feet.(5 )

• Fast bicycling growth along Milwaukee Avenue, especially for people bicycling to work: Based on the 2013-

2017 Census Data, the change in mode share along the study corridor included a 4.4 percent reduction

in auto use, 5.3 percent increase in transit use, 1.5 percent increase in walk, and 23.5 percent increase

in bicycling.(6)

 Further, there was an 83 percent increase in bicycling to work along the study segment,

compared to a 24 percent increase in Chicago.(7)

Source: CDOT 2022.

Figure 1. Diagram. Gaps between crosswalks along Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and 

California Avenue. 

Implementation

The implementation of Milwaukee Avenue improvements between Western Avenue and California Avenue 

was led by CDOT and the city of Chicago’s 1st Ward. CDOT began working with the local community to identify 

a positive redesign of the area. The community engagement process included door-to-door meetings with 

businesses along Milwaukee Avenue to introduce the project, learn about business operations, and listen to 

concerns. Discussions with the local community and stakeholders yielded additional questions and concerns that 

were used to make changes to the final design plans.(8 )

The Milwaukee Avenue improvements between Western Avenue and California Avenue included northbound 

and southbound separated bike lanes to provide more separation between bicyclists and vehicular traffic, 

bump outs to reduce crossing distances, crosswalks to provide additional crossing opportunities, and a 20-mph 

posted speed limit to complement the infrastructure changes and encourage safe driving speeds. Expanding 

the low-stress bike network is a priority for CDOT and Milwaukee Avenue and is an example of successfully 

accommodating the different uses of the street and improving access for those most vulnerable. Figure 2 shows 

an example of the corridor before and after the proposed improvements.

California

625 ft 580 ft 200’ 200’ 480 ft 900 ft 320 ft

Western
79

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: CDOT 2022.

Figure 2. Images. Existing conditions and proposed improvements along Milwaukee Avenue between 

Western Avenue and California Avenue. 

The order of construction of project elements began with separated bike lanes and ended with crosswalk 

installation. The separated bike lanes included plastic curbs and posts, which are more lightweight and affordable 

than the concrete barriers or series of bollards typically used to separate cyclists from drivers. In addition, green 

pavement markings were added along the separated bike lanes. Figure 3 illustrates a segment of the separated 

bike lanes along Milwaukee Avenue.

Existing Layout

Proposed Layout
80

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

 Source: CDOT 2022.

Figure 3. Image. Plastic curbs and green bike boxes at the Milwaukee Avenue and 

California Avenue intersection. 

While parking on Milwaukee Avenue was restricted during construction, the street and businesses remained 

accessible. More than 35 new bike racks were installed between California Avenue and Western Avenue to ensure 

ample bike and scooter parking. In addition to pedestrian and bicyclist improvements, bus floating islands are 

being constructed at various intersections to improve transit operations, transit customer experience, and to 

route people biking behind the bus stops.

Milwaukee Avenue on-street parking was consolidated to one side of the street to accommodate the safety 

improvements. Parking reduction accommodated as many businesses as possible based on discussions with 

local business owners. Further, no residential parking was removed, no changes were made to existing residential 

permit zones or access into neighborhoods, and loading and standing zones for businesses remained.

Outcomes

The improvements along Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and California Avenue resulted in higher 

comfort for everyone living, working, and visiting Milwaukee Avenue. The improvements enhanced business 

access for all modes and provided better access to transit stops via new crosswalks. The separated bike lanes are 

more comfortable for new bike riders and helped increase bike ridership around the neighborhood and among 

bike commuters.

CDOT evaluated crash data before (1-year average, 2012–2016) and after (2021) the improvements were 

implemented. Safety outcomes included a 57-percent reduction in automobile injury crashes and a 71-percent 

reduction in bicyclist injury crashes. Further, zero pedestrian crashes and zero dooring crashes were reported 

after the improvements.(9)
81

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Additional Information

Pedestrian and bicyclist improvements along Milwaukee Avenue between Western Avenue and California 

Avenue were implemented during the summer of 2020 and included separated bike lanes, pedestrian crossing 

improvements, and reduced posted speed limit. For additional information, contact David Smith, CDOT Director 

of the Complete Streets Team at david.smith3@cityofchicago.org.

References

1 Information provided by correspondence with CDOT in 

April 2022. For further information, contact David Smith, 

CDOT Director of Complete Streets Team at david.smith3@

cityofchicago.org

2 City of Chicago. 2017. Vision Zero Chicago: Action Plan 

2017-2019. https://visionzerochicago.org/wp-content/

uploads/2016/05/17_0612-VZ-Action-Plan_FOR-WEB.pdf.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 City of Chicago. (2022). Western Avenue Corridor Study. https://

www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/sites/westernavenue/

Western_Avenue_Corridor_Study_Adopted.pdf.

6 United States Census Bureau. 2021. 2013-2017 American 

Community Survey. Last modified October 8, 2021. https://

www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/technicaldocumentation/table-and-geography-changes/2017/5-year.

html.

7 Information provided by correspondence with CDOT in 

April 2022. For further information, contact David Smith, 

CDOT Director of Complete Streets Team at david.smith3@

cityofchicago.org.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

83

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Source: City of Fremont 2021.

Figure 1. Image. Protected Intersection in Fremont, CA, 

at Civic Center Drive and Walnut Avenue. 

2020 Vision Zero: Vulnerable Road User 

Improvements – Fremont, CA, USA

Key Successes

Since adopting Vision Zero in 2015, Fremont has 

worked to improve safety for all road users by 

applying a Safe System Approach to street design, 

operations, and public education.(1)

 In 2016, a datadriven action plan was adopted for the year 2020. 

This case study focuses on vulnerable user success 

stories in the context of the Safe System Approach 

in an urban core and describes accomplishments 

related to safe and complete streets, as shown in 

Figure 1; safe crossings; brighter street lighting; and 

safe routes to schools in Fremont. When comparing 

crash data between 2013 and 2015 (before the 

Vision Zero policy) and between 2018 and 2020 

(after the Vision Zero policy), Fremont’s efforts 

resulted in the following safety outcomes:( )2

• A 32-percent decrease in pedestrian fatal and 

serious injury crashes

• A 23-percent decrease in bicyclist fatal and serious injury crashes

• A 36-percent decrease in fatal and serious injury crashes during dark conditions

• A 67-percent decrease in youth aged 15 or younger fatal and serious injury crashes

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Examples of how elements of the Safe System Approach are incorporated in the Fremont Vision Zero policy are 

shown below:

Death/serious injury is unacceptable: The city adopted a Vision Zero policy in 2015.

Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: Planned improvements included separation of road users in 

space (buffered and separated bike lanes, protected intersections).

Responsibility is shared: The Vision Zero action plan was a coordinated effort that involved the city of Fremont 

Public Works Department, the city manager, the community, the police department, local advocates, educational 

institutions, and elected officials.

Safety is proactive: The systemic approach was applied at locations where improvements were needed based 

on the risk of future crashes. For example, the city installed pedestrian countdown signals at all signalized 

intersections citywide and short- and long-term measures to improve mid-block crossings.

Redundancy is crucial: Improve pedestrian safety by updating signals, street lighting, and pedestrian crossings.
84

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Background

The city of Fremont has a population of 240,000 and is in the Silicon Valley area of California. During the 2013–

2015 period, Fremont experienced a concerning rise in traffic fatalities and severe injury crashes, particularly 

involving pedestrians, youth, and seniors. The city’s organizational focus on traffic safety began in 2015 with the 

adoption of a Vision Zero policy. city staff from the police department and the public works department prepared 

a data-driven action plan for the year 2020.(3)

Implementation

The Fremont Vision Zero 2020 Action Plan, approved in 2016, focused on pedestrian countdown signals, brighter 

street lighting, and safer and more accessible pedestrian crossings. The main action items for this preliminary plan 

were a coordinated effort and involved the following:

• Organization practices: In Fremont, the offices of transportation engineering and street maintenance as 

well as the city’s pavement maintenance program are all organized within the public works department, 

which reduces barriers to collaboration. This collaboration enabled the implementation of quick-build 

projects, which used materials that were inexpensive and easy to install.

• Partnerships: The police department and transportation engineers meet monthly to share information. 

The fire department works with public works to ensure that narrower street designs to manage speeds 

do not impede emergency response times. The city has also partnered with healthcare providers and the 

school district in Fremont.

• Using data for high-impact work: Fremont created a map of high-crash roads to focus infrastructure 

projects. The city also provides systemic responses and identifies locations where improvements are 

needed based on a risk for a future crash.

• Updating plans and community engagement: The city has a Mobility Action Plan, a Bicycle Master Plan, 

a Pedestrian Master Plan, and Safe Routes to Schools Plans that provide location-specific recommendations 

and identify priority projects. The community is always engaged in the planning process through meetings, 

online surveys, and coordination with the city’s Mobility Commission.

• Safety improvements: The 2020 Vision Zero Action Plan was mostly achieved with no new city funding 

commitments and no new dedicated staff positions. The program was initiated by reallocating existing 

funding resources away from projects that did not serve Vision Zero goals and reshuffling existing staff 

assignments. Therefore, early projects focused on low-cost improvements; creative methods to finance 

projects; and the use of student interns for data collection and analysis, video production, and design 

drafting. Recently, the city has received grant funding that enabled it to implement higher cost projects 

such as traffic signal installations, raised bicycle tracks, and protected intersections.

• Community: “Safety” was adopted as the 2016 theme for the city’s outreach booth at community events.

• Elected Officials: Vice Mayor Sue Lee Chan started a speaker series to discuss Vision Zero with everyone 

that was interested.
85

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Outcomes

In 2016, a data-driven action plan was adopted in Fremont for the year 2020. In 2021, the city released a safety 

status report comparing average crashes during the 2013–2015 period (before the Vision Zero policy) with 

average crashes during the 2018–2020 period (after the Vision Zero policy).(4)

 Accomplishments resulting from 

applying the Safe System Approach in an urban core following the implementation of the data-driven action plan 

include the following:

• Safe and complete streets: Fremont has restriped 40 miles (47 percent of its arterial roadways) since 2015. 

The restriping included reducing travel-lane widths to 10 feet and adding enhanced bike facilities, such 

as buffered and separated lanes. Further, five intersections have been rebuilt as protected intersections, 

with five more in construction, and more than 30 quick-build bulb-outs have been installed. Intersection 

improvements were implemented as both quick-build projects and as full reconstruction projects 

with upgraded traffic signal systems. The new intersections have tighter radii, which shorten crossing 

distances for bicyclists and pedestrians and force drivers to take turns at slower speeds. Also, weaving 

maneuvers between bicyclists and vehicles were eliminated and sight lines were improved at the protected 

intersections.

• Safe crossings: The city installed pedestrian countdown signals at all signalized intersections citywide. 

In addition, Fremont enhanced its 40 mid-block crosswalks on multilane, higher speed roadways with 

both short- and long-term measures. Short-term measures included high-visibility crosswalk striping, 

advance yield signage and markings, and striping and channelizer posts between travel lanes. Long-term 

countermeasures included rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian signals, median refuge islands, 

and bulb-outs.

• Brighter street lighting: The city converted approximately 16,000 streetlights from the standard “yellow” 

sodium vapor lights to brighter “white” LED lights.

• Safe routes to schools: Safety improvement plans were developed for all the 40 public schools citywide 

as a result of a joint effort from the city and Fremont Unified School District. The improvements included 

new all-way stops, high-visibility crosswalks, parking restrictions, enhanced warning signage, and bulb-outs 

delineated with paint and plastic delineators.

The safety effectiveness of Fremont’s vulnerable road user accomplishments in the context of the Safe System 

Approach in an urban core resulted in a decrease in pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and serious injury crashes, a 

decrease in fatal and serious injury crashes during dark conditions, and a decrease in fatal and serious injury 

crashes among youth aged 15 or younger.

Additional Information

The Fremont Vision Zero 2020 Action Plan, approved in 2016, was mostly achieved with no new city funding 

commitments and no new dedicated staff positions. The program was initiated by reallocating existing funding 

resources away from projects that did not serve Vision Zero goals and reshuffling existing staff assignments. 

Therefore, early projects focused on low-cost improvements, creative methods to finance projects, and the use 

of student interns for data collection and analysis, video production, and design drafting, which allowed work to 

start immediately rather than waiting for the regular budget process. 
86

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Recently, the city of Fremont received grant funding that enabled the city to implement higher cost projects, such 

as traffic signal installations, raised bicycle tracks, as shown in Figure 2, and protected intersections. New funding 

for transportation safety projects was also made possible due to the approval of transportation tax programs in 

2014 and in 2017.

 Source: City of Fremont 2021.

Figure 2. Image. Raised bicycle track along Walnut Avenue in Fremont. 

For additional information, contact Hans Larsen, City Public Works Director (hlarsen@fremont.gov).

References 

1 City of Fremont. (n.d.). Safety & Vision Zero. Accessed June 2022. https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/transportationengineering/safety-vision-zero.

2 City of Fremont. (2021). Fremont Vision Zero: Status Report + 2025 Action Plan. https://www.fremont.gov/home/

showpublisheddocument/759/637750212463000000.

3 City of Fremont. (n.d.). Safety & Vision Zero. Accessed June 2022. https://www.fremont.gov/government/departments/transportationengineering/safety-vision-zero

4 City of Fremont. (2021). Fremont Vision Zero: Status Report + 2025 Action Plan. https://www.fremont.gov/home/

showpublisheddocument/759/637750212463000000.
87

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

MassDOT Applies the Safe System Approach in 

Policies, Programs, and Practices – 

Massachusetts, USA

Key Successes

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) has a twofold approach to safety. First, the agency

uses a data-driven process for identifying locations with high-crash rates and those at high risk of crashes that are

eligible for safety enhancements across the State, regardless of jurisdiction. Second, the agency provides several

resources for local jurisidictions to use toward additional safety projects. Since these resources have been recently

put into practice, not many engineering outcomes are yet apparent. However, there have already been some key

successes, which include the following:

• The data-driven approach in the publication MassDOT Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide, which supports

MassDOT, regional offices, local agencies, and consultants in the development and selection of safetyfocused and cost-effective alternatives.(1)

• While the results are preliminary, an illustrative urban area project—the Kelley Square intersection—shows

crashes (both injury and property damage only crashes) have dropped 35 percent since the improvements

were implemented, despite only a 17-percent drop in crashes elsewhere in the city and an increase in traffic

over the same period.(2)

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Responsibility is shared: MassDOT’s approach focuses on a data-driven process to fund safety projects on 

roadways statewide while also recognizing its role as a provider of resources to local agencies so changes can be 

made at local levels. One of the resources that MassDOT makes available for both its own use as well as public 

and local agency use is the Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide, which supports regional offices and local agencies in 

developing and selecting safety-focused and cost-effective alternatives for projects.(3)

Safety is proactive: MassDOT’s Safety Analysis Tools Module provides interactive online dashboards where users 

can easily identify roadway segments that are ranked through a risk-based screening analysis for several emphasis 

areas and go beyond simply addressing crash “hot spots.”(4)

Redundancy is crucial: Safety projects, such as Kelley Square, include multiple safety countermeasures to 

increase safety of all road users and reduce conflicts and speeds in urban cores, metropolitan cities, and rural 

town centers across the State. 

Humans are vulnerable: Speed management in Massachusetts recognizes that a layering of strategies is 

needed to create safe speeds for all road users. MassDOT has incorporated a five-step recommended process 

to implementing speed management in communities. These steps include collecting and analyzing data, 

establishing a target speed, designing speed control, and raising awareness. 
88

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Sources: MassDOT 2020b (top) and VHB n.d. (bottom).

Figure 3. Images. Before (top) and After (bottom) photos of intersection safety improvements that apply the 

Safe System Approach in an urban core at Kelley Square. 
89

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Background

MassDOT has fundamentally adopted the Safe System Approach at all levels to systemically address crashes 

across its broad jurisdiction, particularly in urban areas where factors leading to crashes are more complex. Since 

2006, when it released its Project Development and Design Guide, MassDOT has made multimodal consideration—

defined as “[ensuring] that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, cyclists, 

and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project so that even the most vulnerable (e.g., children 

and the elderly) can feel and be safe within the public right of way”—a strong guiding principle for all of its 

projects.(5 )

This emphasis on safety across all modes has carried through to this day, with the principles and elements of the 

Safe System Approach being woven into the update of MassDOT’s latest Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), 

which is currently underway. Previously, specific elements of the Safe System Approach were used by MassDOT. 

In 2018, the agency guided conversations with 250 stakeholders grouped into 14 defined emphasis areas. For the 

soon-to-be updated SHSP, the Executive Leadership Committee opted for using a framework based on the Safe 

System Approach, which is instrumental in breaking down silos that often occur when stakeholders communicate 

around a particular emphasis area (e.g., speeding, aggressive driving, pedestrian crashes, large truck-involved 

crashes, lane departure crashes, and so on). The breaking down of silos is helping to ensure success when 

stakeholders across the State have a voice in updating the criteria for selecting strategies and actions to include in 

the SHSP. 

Source: City of Newton n.d.

Figure 4. Image. Rendering of proposed changes to Commonwealth Avenue with new sidewalk and 

two-way separated bike lanes. 
90

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Implementation

Included in MassDOT’s safety program are policy and procedure tools that provide resources for municipalities to 

adopt and implement Safety System Approaches. These policy and procedural tools include the following: 

Safety Analysis Module in IMPACT Crash Data Portal:(6 ) MassDOT recently implemented a new module of 

safety analysis tools in its crash data portal, which is used by stakeholders to locate intersections with both 

high-crash rates and a high risk of crashes as well as segments that could be eligible for HSIP funding. Network 

screening tools highlight the top 5 percent and 10 percent of segments based on reported crashes and risk factors, 

respectively, both statewide and by MPO. A powerful tool for developing crash trees and proportions testing allows 

users to easily create custom reports detailing common and overrepresented crash types at the citywide, corridor, or 

intersection level. These tools have proven very popular with MassDOT regional offices, MPOs, and municipal staff to 

help guide conversations about traffic safety issues with constituents at the local level.

Source: MassDOT n.d.

Figure 5. Map. Safety analysis module depicting corridors at high risk for pedestrian crashes. 

Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide:(7) MassDOT published the Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide in October 

2021 to support MassDOT, regional offices, local agencies, designers, and consultants in the development and

selection of safety-focused and cost-effective alternatives for projects, particularly if they are seeking HSIP funds.

While the guide can be used across land-use contexts from urban to rural, it augments typical intersection control

evaluations (ICE). It provides a method to calculate crash frequency even where national and State-calibrated

safety performance functions are not available. The guide incorporated an economic analysis step, where the

cost of each alternative is compared to their estimated system-wide benefits using Massachusetts-adjusted

comprehensive crash costs.

To go beyond the use of the Safety Analysis Alternatives Guide at irregular intersections, MassDOT recently used

the Safe System Approach for the development of alternatives on several projects. One of these projects was

Commonwealth Avenue in Newton which included the Commonwealth Avenue (MA 30) intersection with

Auburn Street and Oakland Avenue. The project is under design to include a continuous green intersection in 

addition to two-way separated bike lanes and installation of several crossings with Rapid Rectangular Flashing 

Beacons (RRFBs). 

Systemic Risk Factor Pedestrian State 

Ranking

Systemic Risk Factor Pedestrian State

Ranking

Primary Risk Site

Secondary Risk Site

Other
91

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Kelley Square Improvement Project:(8 ) Kelley Square was an unsignalized, seven-leg, high-crash intersection

in Worcester, MA, that was the top crash location in the city and #5 in the state. MassDOT led a redesign that

converted the square into a hybrid roundabout, with most of the work substantially completed by January 2021. The

preliminary data indicate crashes (both injury and property damage only crashes) have dropped 35 percent from

before the improvements were put in place to after the improvements had been put in place, as compared to only

a 17-percent drop in crashes elsewhere in the city and an increase in traffic over the same period.2 The redesign has

won awards for community engagement and engineering excellence for increasing safety, enhancing traffic flow,

and creating a more walkable and bikeable environment, all in a challenging urban space. For more information

about key safety elements of the project, view the November 2020 Kelley Square Newsletter.(9)

Major elements of the Kelley Square project include the following:(10)

1. Reconstruction of Kelley Square as a hybrid roundabout

2. Madison Street:

• Adding parking to the road’s north side

• Improving landscaping and street lighting along the road

• Constructing a shared-use path

3. Green Street:

• Improving landscaping and street lighting along the road

• Constructing a shared-use path

4. Harding Street:

• Improving landscaping and street lighting along the road

• Constructing a shared-use path

• Constructing a bicycle lane leading into Kelley Square

• New roundabout at the intersection of Arwick Ave., Millbury St., and Harding St.

5. Reversing the direction of Millbury St. and Harding St. to work with the Roundabout in Kelley Square

Source: MassDOT 2020b.

Figure 6. Project elements of the Kelley Square project in Worcester, MA. 
92

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Equity Considerations in Pedestrian Safety: As part of the U.S. DOT Safety Data Initiative and MassDOT’s SHSP 

Emphasis Areas, MassDOT has been working to identify safety improvements to help produce more equitable 

outcomes for pedestrian safety and mobility based on risk factors of pedestrian deaths, such as roadway and 

infrastructure factors like speed limit and number of lanes. According to FHWA’s July/August 2022 Innovator 

Newsletter, “MassDOT found the majority of fatal and serious injury pedestrian crashes occurred on roads that 

had posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour and less and were two-way with an undivided configuration. 

[Additionally, if] the road segment is located within an area that has a high percentage of low-income 

households, a higher percentage of non-English speakers, or lower employment rates, the road segment has 

an elevated risk.”(11) This safety and equity analyses is helping MassDOT identify high-impact safety and equity 

projects where risk and need are greatest statewide. Read more about this work in the full MassDOT IMPACT 

Phase II – Identification of Risk Factors for SHSP Emphasis Areas Pedestrian Crashes.

(12)

Achieving Target Speeds: In November 2016, the Massachusetts State Legislature passed a law that allows 

municipalities to lower speed limits below the statutory speed limit of 30 mph to 25 mph in areas that are 

defined as thickly settled based on the density of businesses or residences, and municipalities can unilaterally 

opt in to do so in accordance with a local ordinance, notifying MassDOT of the change in the statutory speed 

limit and posting it at the jurisdictional boundaries. The law also allows for the creation of safety zones where the 

posted speed limit can be reduced to 20 mph. Since the law was passed, 58 municipalities across the State have 

opted into lowering speed limits in their thickly settled areas. The largest cities within the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, such as Boston and Springfield, enacted similar local laws within a year of the State law being 

passed. More recently, smaller urban areas, such as Amesbury and Winthrop have made the switch to lower 

speed limits locally, with both communities enacting their local ordinances in 2021. 

Nationwide, there is limited data on the effectiveness of solely lowering posted speeds to reduce motorists 

speeding. MassDOT recognizes that speed-limit reductions are most effective when instituted in tandem with 

road geometry changes that provide self-explaining roads and help achieve target speeds. Therefore, there is 

continued need for data on the effects of speed-limit reductions in thickly settled areas alone. 

Given that lower speeds are a critical element of the Safe System Approach and that speed-limit changes work 

best when enacted in concert with changes to roadway geometry, MassDOT has created a detailed speed 

management webpage to provide step-by-step assistance on how to implement safer speeds in Massachusetts 

communities.(13) This webpage also includes a roadway treatment toolkit that MassDOT recently created for 

municipalities and local stakeholders about how to layer speed management treatments that control speeds and 

create separation through roadway treatments.(14)

Outcomes

Overall, the efforts of MassDOT to increase the safety of the State’s transportation system using elements of the 

Safe System Approach have contributed to it being a State DOT known for promoting the safety of all road users 

and providing technical assistance to its local agencies. With a fatality rate of 0.51 deaths per 100 million vehicle 

milestraveled (VMT), 54 percent lower than the nationwide average in 2019, Massachusetts is the State with the 

lowest fatality rate from motor vehicle traffic crashes, according to the latest data from FARS.(15)

 From 2012 to 
93

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

2019, Massachusetts saw consistent year-to-year reductions in serious injury crashes that add up to an overall 

decrease of a 23 percent, even as VMT has gone up consistently over the same period.(16)

Additional Information

For more information about MassDOT safety programs, contact Bonnie Polin, State Safety Engineer at MassDOT

at Bonnie.Polin@dot.state.ma.us.

References

1 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2021a). 

MassDOT Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide. https://www.

mass.gov/doc/massdot-safety-alternatives-analysis-guide/

download.

2 Massachusetts Department of Transportation supplied data 

based on IMPACT query, September 6, 2022.

3 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2021a). 

MassDOT Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide. https://www.

mass.gov/doc/massdot-safety-alternatives-analysis-guide/

download.

4 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2020a). 

IMPACT Safety Analysis Tools. https://apps.impact.dot.state.

ma.us/sat/landing.

5 Massachusetts Highway Department. 2006. Project 

Development & Design Guide, p. 1-2. 

https://bicycleinfrastructuremanuals.com/manuals3/

MassDOT-%202006%20Project%20Development%20and%

20Design%20Guide%20.pdf.

6 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2020a). 

IMPACT Safety Analysis Tools. https://apps.impact.dot.state.

ma.us/sat/landing.

7 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2021a). 

MassDOT Safety Alternatives Analysis Guide. https://www.

mass.gov/doc/massdot-safety-alternatives-analysis-guide/

download.

8 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2020b). Kelley 

Square Improvement Project, Worcester, Massachusetts. 

https://www.mass.gov/doc/kelly-square-november-2020-

newsletter-english-version/download.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Federal Highway Administration. (2022a). MassDOT 

Incorporates Equity Factors into Pedestrian Safety Analysis. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/innovation/innovator/issue91/

page_02.html?utm_source=social.

12 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2021b). 

IMPACT Phase II – Identification of Risk Factors for SHSP Emphasis 

Areas, Pedestrian Crashes. https://www.mass.gov/doc/

pedestrian-crashes-massdot-impact-phase-ii-identificationof-risk-factors-for-shsp-emphasis-areas/download.

13 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (n.d.(a)) 

Accessed on 6/15/2022. Learn About Speed Management. 

https://www.mass.gov/info-details/learn-about-speedmanagement.

14 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (n.d.(b)) 

Accessed on 6/15/2022. Safe Speeds: Roadway Treatment 

Technical Toolkit. https://www.mass.gov/info-details/safespeeds-roadway-treatment-technical-toolkit.

15 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2021c). Fatality Facts 

2019: State by State. IIHS-HLDI Crash Testing and Highway 

Safety. https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/

state-by-state.

16 Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2022b). 

Statewide Crashes by Severity and Year. Dashboard, IMPACT 

Crash Data Portal. https://apps.impact.dot.state.ma.us/cdp/

dashboard-view/26.

95

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Using Vision Zero as a Goal and Putting Actions in 

Motion to Eliminate Traffic Deaths in the Downtown 

Core – Minneapolis, MN, USA

Key Successes

The city of Minneapolis, MN, has adopted a goal of 

Vision Zero by 2027 and has started to apply the Safe 

System Approach as a means to achieve zero traffic 

deaths. In 2017, Minneapolis adopted its Vision Zero 

resolution. The city takes a people-focused approach 

to safe mobility and pays particular attention to the 

disparities low-income communities and communities 

of color are experiencing with regards to traffic deaths 

and serious injuries. 

Key successes of the city’s Vision Zero program include 

the following:(1)

 

• A key performance metric to monitor the 

percentage change in traffic stops among 

people of color. 

• A 49-percent decrease in pedestrian- and bicyclerelated crashes in 2020 compared to the 2016–

2019 average. 

• A 17-percent decrease in the total number of traffic deaths and severe injuries on streets, reflecting a drop 

from the average of 165 during the 2016–2019 period to 137 in 2020.

The Safe System Approach Highlights

Death/serious injury is unaccepted: The city of Minneapolis has identified high-injury streets, which consist 

of only 9 percent of Minneapolis’s streets but represent 70 percent of the city’s severe and fatal crash locations 

between 2007 and 2016.(2 )

Humans are vulnerable: The city has recognized that Native American and Black residents are 

disproportionately impacted by traffic deaths. For example, Black residents are 19 percent of Minneapolis 

population, but are 26 percent of people killed in traffic crashes.(3)

 Minneapolis has placed a strong emphasis 

on incorporating equity in its safety improvements, especially its urban core, which contains underserved 

communities that rely on safe, consistent multimodal transportation options. 

Safety is proactive: The city has set proactive goals surrounding the safety of all road users with an emphasis 

on the fact that proactive changes need to be made. The city has created an interactive online map where 

community members can report traffic safety concerns along high injury streets. Community feedback will be 

used with crash data to help inform quick-build safety improvements.(4)

Source: Sarah Abel n.d.

Figure 1. Image. The city has implemented new 

projects in the downtown core, such as a separated 

bike lane on South Washington Avenue. 
96

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Background

After seeing the highest number of deaths and injuries on their streets since 2007 in both 2016 and 2017, the 

Minneapolis city Council adopted a Vision Zero resolution with the commitment to the goal of zero traffic deaths 

or serious injuries by 2027. To solidify the city’s commitment to Vision Zero, the 2020–2022 Vision Zero Action Plan 

was released, setting the framework and strategy for the near future.(5)

 With guiding principles pushing for 

equitable, accountable, data-driven strategies that put safety and human lives first, the Vision Zero Action Plan is 

a core document in Minneapolis’ implementation of the Safe System Approach. In 2020, the city of Minneapolis 

adopted the Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan which is shaped by Minneapolis 2040, the city’s Climate 

Action Plan, Complete Streets, and Vision Zero policies. (6, 7, 8, 9)

 The goals in the transportation action plan are 

consistent with those of the other plans, allowing for a Safe System Approach to improving multimodal 

transportation conditions across Minneapolis. To combine the goals of the Transportation Action Plan and other 

efforts, the city released its 3.0 Street Design Guidance in the spring of 2021, providing preventative design 

information based on these pre-established goals.(10)

 Source: City of Minneapolis n.d.

Figure 2. Map. High injury network and project prioritizations map.
97

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Implementation

The city of Minneapolis uses a variety of implementation strategies when applying the Safe System Approach 

in its urban core. Through a combination of preventative engineering, data-driven decision-making, and policy 

efforts, Minneapolis has an effective, systemic approach to showcase. 

The city’s Vision Zero Program is a key part of its application of the Safe System Approach as it employs an 

equity- and data-driven approach to reaching the goal of zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries.(11)

 As detailed 

in the Vision Zero Action Plan, a high percentage of traffic fatalities and injuries occur within the city’s urban core, 

and 36 percent of all crashes occurred in Areas of Concentrated Poverty (ACP). Due to these alarming statistics, 

Minneapolis is dedicating more of its Vision Zero resources to these urban areas and tracking implementation in 

ACP areas as a key performance metric. To remain proactive in its decision making and hold itself accountable 

to its goal of zero, Minneapolis committed to issuing an annual Vision Zero report and progress reports every 

6 months. Some of the metrics that focus on the urban core include the percentage of new safety treatments 

in ACP areas, the percentage of streets with high-injury rates receiving new safety treatments, the percentage 

change in traffic stops that involve people of color, and more.(12 )

Minneapolis uses this data-driven process to target infrastructure improvements at key locations for annual Vision 

Zero safety improvement projects. These projects are typically quick-build safety treatments at spot locations 

along the high-injury network. The city’s goal is to improve 46 miles of streets using spot treatments along 

with treatments on the high-injury network over the next few years. These safety improvements include curb 

extensions, pedestrian-crossing medians, lane narrowing, high-visibility crosswalk markings, bike conflict-zone 

markings, and changes to signal intervals. The city is allocating $3 million over the next 6 years in its Vision Zero 

program to implement these treatments.(13)

A project underway that is an example of Minneapolis’ implementation of the Safe System Approach is the 

Hennepin Avenue project. The project is approximately 1 mile long and focuses on improving traffic safety and 

modal options in a neighborhood with racial disparities. Hennepin Avenue is highly trafficked by all modes of 

travel, and it runs directly through Minneapolis’ urban center. The corridor is identified in the high-injury network, 

and in a 3-year crash study, it was found that pedestrians and bicyclists comprise 57 percent of injury crashes.(14)

The project is currently under construction and will include a redesign to accommodate all travel types within 

the existing right of way. The completed project will have a sidewalk area with space for plants and furniture for 

pedestrians, one-way separated bikeways installed behind the curb, space for enhanced transit stops for the 

future BRT service, and four vehicle lanes for two-way travel.(15)

Using the information found in the Transportation Action Plan, Complete Streets Policy, Vision Zero Action Plan, 

and the Street Design Guide, the project is going to improve the experience of pedestrians, transit users, and 

bicyclists through increased safety and connectivity and improved infrastructure. By using in-depth data to drive 

these decisions, Minneapolis can ensure that it is improving conditions for marginalized communities that are 

disproportionally being impacted by road-safety issues. 
98

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Outcomes

Although the implementation of the Vision Zero 

strategies is recently developed and still underway, the 

city of Minneapolis has begun tracking key outcomes 

from the program. In 2020, the city installed quickbuild safety improvements at 29 intersections, of which 

approximately 60 percent were located along streets 

in the high-injury network and in ACP areas. The city 

also completed more than 100 curb extensions and 12 

pedestrian-refuge islands. Additionally, the city lowered 

speed limits on all streets in its jurisdiction, reducing 

speeds to 20 mph for residential streets, 25 mph for 

most collectors and arterials, and as low as 30 mph for a 

few arterials for a few arterials.(16 )

 

From 2016 to 2020, there was a 26-percent decrease in the number of annual severe injury and fatal crashes in 

Minneapolis, reflecting a drop from 185 to 137. Similarly, there was a 46-percent decrease in severe injury and fatal 

crashes involving pedestrians over the same period. It should be noted, however, that 2020 saw 15 fatal crashes, a 

30-percent increase over the average during the 2016–2019 period and the highest number of fatalities since 2013.(17 )

Additional Information

For additional information, please contact Ethan Fawley, Vision Zero Program Coordinator with the city of 

Minneapolis at ethan.fawley@minneapolismn.gov or visit https://sdg.minneapolismn.gov/ and https://www.

minneapolismn.gov/government/programs-initiatives/visionzero/ to learn more about the Street Design Guide 

and Vision Zero program.

Source: City of Minneapolis n.d.

Figure 3. Illustrative rendering for Hennepin Avenue 

redesign showing separated, behind-the-curb bike 

lane, widened sidewalk and transit stop. 
99

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

1 City of Minneapolis. (2021). Minneapolis Vision Zero Annual 

Report 2021. https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/

RCAV2/17290/2021-Vision-Zero-Annual-Report.pdf.

2 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(a)) Vision Zero-Traffic 

Safety Concerns. https://cityoflakes.maps.

arcgis.com/apps/CrowdsourceReporter/index.

html?appid=3b19e4d02753490784c0c85c9bd1baa2.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 City of Minneapolis. (2019). Vision Zero Action Plan 2020-2022. 

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-contentassets/documents/VZ-Action-Plan-2020-22.pdf.

6 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(b)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. 

City of Minneapolis Transportation Action Plan. https://

go.minneapolismn.gov/.

7 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(c)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. Welcome 

to Minneapolis 2040-The City’s Comprehensive Plan. https://

minneapolis2040.com/.

8 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(d)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. 

Minneapolis-Climate Action Plan: A Roadmap to Reducing 

Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://www2.

minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2-

documents/government/Minneapolis-Climate-Action-Plan-1.

pdf.

9 City of Minneapolis. (2021a). Complete Streets 2021. https://

www2.minneapolismn.gov/government/departments/

public-works/tpp/complete-streets/.

10 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(e)). Accessed on 7/18/2022. 3.0 Street 

Design Guidance. https://sdg.minneapolismn.gov/designguidance.

11 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(f)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. Vision 

Zero. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/government/

programs-initiatives/visionzero/.

12 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(a)) Vision Zero-Traffic 

Safety Concerns. https://cityoflakes.maps.

arcgis.com/apps/CrowdsourceReporter/index.

html?appid=3b19e4d02753490784c0c85c9bd1baa2.

13 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(g)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. 

Implementation-Learn about what we’ve done so far to put our 

Vision Zero plan into action. https://www.minneapolismn.gov/

government/programs-initiatives/visionzero/actions-taken/.

14 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(h)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. Hennepin 

Ave-Douglas to Lake Crash Analysis 2016-March 2019. https://

www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-content-assets/

documents/Hennepin-Ave.-S.-Crash-Study.pdf.

15 City of Minneapolis. (n.d.(i)) Accessed on 7/18/2022. Hennepin 

Downtown. https://www.hennepindowntown.com/projectinfo/.

16 City of Minneapolis. (2019). Vision Zero Action Plan 2020-2022. 

https://www.minneapolismn.gov/media/-www-contentassets/documents/VZ-Action-Plan-2020-22.pdf.

17 City of Minneapolis. (2021b). Minneapolis Vision Zero Annual 

Report 2021. https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/

RCAV2/17290/2021-Vision-Zero-Annual-Report.pdf.

References

101

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Washington State Collaboration with Local 

Jurisdictions – Washington State, USA

Key Successes

The safety coalitions in State of Washington have a firm commitment to implement Safe System Approach 

elements in the urban core. The strong collaboration between State and local agencies, traffic safety advocates, 

partners, and stakeholders resulted in safety improvements, such as the successes below:(1)

• A 13- to 18-percent reduction in injury crashes after speed limit reduction to 20 mph in 

Urban Villages in Seattle

• A 48-percent reduction in pedestrian turning collisions and a 34-percent reduction in serious injury and 

fatal pedestrian collisions after installation of leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) in Seattle. LPIs are one 

of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, and transportation agencies should refer to the MUTCD for 

guidance on LPI timing and ensure that pedestrian signals are accessible for all road users. (2, 3)

• Development of an innovative, proactive network screening approach in Bellevue

• A 42 percent reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts after LPI changes were made in Bellevue

The Safe System Approach Highlights

• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: The State adopted Target Zero as part of its Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan in 2019.

• Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: The Washington State Department of Transportation’s 

(WSDOT) approach to considering pedestrian and bicyclist activity when determining speed limits on 

urban and suburban roads reflects this concept. Seattle and Bellevue’s speed reduction and LPIs improve 

vulnerable road user safety.

• Responsibility is shared: Washington State has a long history of traffic safety leaders who bring together 

key State and local agencies, traffic safety advocates, partners, and stakeholders to collaborate across 

organizational boundaries.

• Safety is proactive: Seattle takes a proactive approach to applying systemic speed limit reductions and 

signal timing changes; this approach is also reflected in its bike and pedestrian safety analysis processes. 

Bellevue’s proactive network screening approach is based on surrogate safety measures.

Background

In 2019, Washington State adopted Target Zero,(4) the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) for the State. The 

plan’s vision is to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on Washington’s roadways by 2030. In addition to adopting 

Target Zero, WSDOT has developed numerous efforts to improve safety in the State even before the commitment 

to Vision Zero.(5, 6 ,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12)

 WSDOT also considers pedestrian and bicyclist activity when determining the speed 

limit on most urban and suburban streets. The combination of the State’s commitment to improving safety and 

the strong collaboration between State and local agencies resulted in a noteworthy practice for implementing 

projects at a local level with State guidance. 
102

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Implementation

Approximately two-thirds of traffic fatalities and serious injuries in Washington occur on local roadways. 

Washington’s progress toward Target Zero relies on the critical work being done by local agencies and traffic 

safety stakeholders. Target Zero analysts update community-specific crash data regularly on the WSDOT 

Crash Portal.(13)

 This data helps local agencies prioritize their traffic safety projects and programs and assists in 

developing localized Target Zero plans.

Washington State funds 

and supports Target Zero 

Managers (TZMs), who build 

regional coalitions of partners 

to implement solutions to 

local traffic safety issues. TZMs, 

as shown in Figure 1, guide 

local task forces within many 

counties as well as the State’s 

Tribal reservations. These task 

forces are ideally composed of 

individuals with competencies 

in the 4E’s—engineering, 

enforcement, education, 

and EMS—as well as other 

community agencies and 

organizations with an interest in 

traffic safety. The TZMs and task 

forces coordinate local traffic safety 

efforts and resources by tracking 

data, trends, and issues in their 

area. They develop and provide a variety of traffic safety programs, services, and public outreach throughout their 

communities by working with local partners.

Target Zero includes key actions that a State or local jurisdiction can take to influence traffic safety. The plan 

adopts the Safe System Approach in its policies, programs, projects, activities, and investments. As part of Target 

Zero, WSDOT identified examples of Safe System strategies for addressing fatalities and serious injuries in the 

State, as summarized in Table 1.

Source: WSDOT n.d.

Figure 1. Map. Regions with assigned Target Zero Managers (TZMs) 

in Washington. 
103

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Table 1. WSDOT Target Zero strategies for addressing safe systems fatalities and serious injuries.

Objective Strategies Implementation 

Areas

Apply the Safe 

System Approach 

to prioritize proven 

countermeasures

Complete infrastructure connectivity for pedestrians and bicyclists 

and make progress toward providing separation where needed 

based on crash exposure, crash history, and characteristics of the 

roadway and adjacent land use associated with higher levels of use.

Engineering

Develop and implement speed management policy, guidelines, and 

professional training focused on injury minimization.

Education, 

Leadership

Address equity

Conduct demographic analysis to identify communities of concern. Evaluation

Increase investment in infrastructure in historically underserved 

areas where crash rates and severity are disproportionate to local 

and regional rates.

Engineering, 

Evaluation

Support and report on development of city and county road safety 

plans based in principles of systematic safety

Evaluation, 

Leadership

Improve data and 

analysis

Develop and disseminate systematic safety data analyses by 

jurisdiction to provide context for crash rates, severity, contributing 

factors, and proven countermeasures

Evaluation

Source: WSDOT 2019. 

Outcomes

As a result of the strong collaboration between State and local jurisdictions, Target Zero goals have been 

successfully implemented in the urban core throughout Washington State. For example, noteworthy safety 

outcomes resulted from the engagement of TZMs and the cities of Seattle and Bellevue.

Seattle

TZMs in King County have been part of the Seattle Vision Zero initiative. Seattle adopted Vision Zero, with 

an emphasis on the Safe System Approach, in 2015. A few highlights from Seattle’s Vision Zero efforts are 

shown below:(14)

• In 2016, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) reduced the speed limit on all 2,400 miles of 

its non-arterial streets to 20 mph and reduced the speed limit on 75 miles of city-center arterial streets to 

25 mph. Since then, this program shifted focus to the city’s Urban Villages (urban core), where 80 percent 

of pedestrian crashes occur. Early safety evaluation shows a 13 percent reduction in injury crashes on the 

Green Lake/Roosevelt Urban Village and an 18 percent reduction in injury crashes on the U-District Urban 

Center (from December 2018 to November 2019).(15 )

• Since 2009, LPIs have been installed in Seattle at almost 450 intersections, which resulted in a 48 percent 

reduction in pedestrian-turning collisions and a 34-percent reduction in serious injury and fatal pedestrian 

collisions from 2009 to 2018.(16 ) In 2022, 70 additional LPI locations funded by WSDOT safety grants were 

planned. In 2019, a policy for installing leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) every time a new traffic signal 

is built or an existing signal is maintained was adopted.(17 ) Seattle maintains a map, as shown in Figure 2, 

showing LPI existing and proposed locations.(15)
104

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• SDOT undertakes regular Bike and Pedestrian Safety Analyses to understand what roadway conditions are 

contributing to higher crash risk and where SDOT should focus efforts to proactively improve safety for 

pedestrians and bicyclists.(18 )

• Seattle’s Vision Zero Team meets regularly with the local King County TZMs to review recent crashes, data, 

and enforcement efforts.

Source: WSDOT n.d.(b)

Figure 2. Map. Example of area showing LPI locations in Seattle.

Bellevue

TZMs in King County have also been part of the Bellevue Vision Zero initiatives. In coordination with TZMs in 2020, 

Bellevue adopted a Vision Zero plan with a focus on the Safe System Approach to eliminating traffic deaths and 

serious injury crashes on city streets by the year 2030.(19)

 A few elements from Bellevue’s Vision Zero plan include 

the following:

• Implementation of rapid build road safety projects along five high-injury networks (HIN) corridors. 

Countermeasures include radar feedback signs, pedestrian crossings, and medians.

• Periodically conducting Road Safety Assessments (RSAs) in partnership with WSDOT and FHWA.

• Lowering the speed limits for all streets in the Surrey Downs neighborhood of Bellevue from 25 mph to 20 

mph.(20 )

• Maintaining a Bellevue Collision Dashboard to better understand the collisions that have occurred on city 

streets this past decade.(21)
105

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

• A video analytics systematic project uses Bellevue’s system of 360-degree, high-definition traffic cameras 

to identify near-crash traffic conflicts between people driving, walking, and bicycling.(22)

 LPIs were installed 

at 20 intersections in the Downtown and Crossroads areas with traffic cameras that were used to observe 

more than 650,000 road users. There was a 42 percent reduction in vehicle-pedestrian conflicts after LPI 

changes were made.(23)

 Using a sample of 40 cameras and intersections in Bellevue, a proactive network 

screening approach was developed based on surrogate safety measures.(24)

 This proactive tool can 

constantly look for high risk locations and risk contributing factors, and potential safety improvements are 

proposed even before crashes occur.

Additional Information

Collaboration between State and local agencies, traffic safety advocates, partners, and stakeholders is a strong 

characteristic in Washington State. Established in 1967, the Washington Traffic Safety Commission (WTSC) 

has allowed agencies and organizations to share traffic safety responsibility. In March 2022, Washington State 

Governor Jay Inslee signed into State law ESSB 5974, a complete streets/safety provision for new projects.(25)

This law addresses accessibility, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities in population centers and became effective as 

of July 1, 2023, for all new projects in the design phase valued at more than $500,000. For more information 

regarding WSDOT safety efforts and collaboration with local jurisdictions, contact John Milton, State Safety 

Engineer, at miltonj@wsdot.wa.gov.

References

1 Washington Department of Transportation. (2019). 

Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019: Zero 

Deaths and Zero Serious Injuries by 2030. http://targetzero.com/

wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf.

2 Federal Highway Administration. (2021). Proven Safety 

Countermeasures – Leading Pedestrian Interval. https://safety.

fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/lead_ped_int.cfm.

3 Federal Highway Administration. (2009). Manual on Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/.

4 Washington Department of Transportation. (2019). 

Washington State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2019: Zero 

Deaths and Zero Serious Injuries by 2030. http://targetzero.com/

wp-content/uploads/2020/03/TargetZero2019_Lo-Res.pdf.

5 Washington Department of Transportation. (1992). A Summary 

of Guidelines for Coordinated Urban Design, Transportation 

and Land Use Planning, With an Emphasis on Encouraging 

Alternatives to Driving Alone. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

research/reports/fullreports/261.3.pdf.

6 Washington Department of Transportation. (2020). Safety 

Analysis Guide. https://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/

design/ASDE/Safety-Analysis-Guide.pdf.

7 Washington Department of Transportation. (2018). Action 

Plan for Implementing Pedestrian Crossing Countermeasures at 

Uncontrolled Locations. https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/

files/2021-11/WSDOT-STEP-ActionPlan_FINAL-Dec2018.pdf.

8 Washington Department of Transportation. (2021). 

Washington State Active Transportation Plan 2020 and Beyond.

https://wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-12/ATP-2020-

and-Beyond.pdf.

9 Washington Department of Transportation. (n.d.(a)) Accessed 

on 5/23/22. Planning Guidance. https://wsdot.wa.gov/

engineering-standards/planning-guidance.

10 Washington Department of Transportation. (2015). Safety 

Guidance for Corridor Planning Studies. https://wsdot.

wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/SafetyGuidance_

CorridorPlanningStudies_June2016.pdf.

11 Washington Department of Transportation. (2000). 

Technology and Safety on Urban Roadways: The Role of ITS 

for WSDOT. https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/research/reports/

fullreports/460.2.pdf.

12 Washington Department of Transportation. (2020b). 

Washington State Injury Minimization and Speed Management 

Policy Elements and Implementation Recommendations. https://

wsdot.wa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/InjuryMinimizationSpeedManagement-PolicyElements-Recommendations.pdf.

13 Washington Department of Transportation (n.d.(b)) Accessed 

on 5/23/22. Crash Data Portal. https://remoteapps.wsdot.

wa.gov/highwaysafety/collision/data/portal/public/.

14 City of Seattle. (2015). Vision Zero-Seattle’s Plan to End Traffic 

Deaths and Serious Injuries by 2030. http://www.seattle.gov/

documents/Departments/beSuperSafe/VisionZeroPlan.pdf.

15 Seattle Department of Transportation. (2020a). Speed 

Limit Case Studies. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/

Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SpeedLimit_CaseStudies_

Report.pdf.
106

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

16 Seattle Department of Transportation. (2022). Leading 

Pedestrian Intervals. http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/

projects-and-programs/safety-first/vision-zero/leadingpedestrian-intervals.

17 Seattle Department of Transportation. (2019). SDOT 

Policy Memorandum. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/

Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/SDOT%20Policy%20on%20

Leading%20Pedestrian%20Intervals%20-%20Signed.pdf.

18 Seattle Department of Transportation. (2020b). City of Seattle 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Analysis: Phase 2. http://www.

seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/VisionZero/

SDOT_Bike%20and%20Ped%20Safety%20Analysis_

Ph2_2420%280%29.pdf.

19 City of Bellevue. (2020a). Vision Zero Strategic Plan.

https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/media/pdf_

document/2021/vision-zero-strategic-plan-120120.pdf.

20 City of Bellevue. (2020b). Surrey Downs Speed Limit Reduction. 

https://bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/

transportation/projects/neighborhood-projects/surreydowns-speed-limit.

21 City of Bellevue. (2021). Eliminating Traffic Deaths and SeriousInjury collisions on City Streets by 2030. https://storymaps.

arcgis.com/stories/14093429038345039816d6d72a02df77.

22 City of Bellevue. (2019). Progress Reporting. https://

bellevuewa.gov/city-government/departments/

transportation/safety-and-maintenance/traffic-safety/visionzero/video-analytics.

23 City of Bellevue. (2022). Leading Pedestrian Intervals-Yay or 

Nay? A Before-After Evaluation Using Conflict-Based Peak Over 

Threshold Approach. https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/

files/media/pdf_document/2022/leading-pedestrianintervals-research-paper-010322.pdf.

24 City of Bellevue. (2020c). Video-Based Network-Wide Surrogate 

Safety Analysis to Support a Proactive Network Screening Using 

Connected Cameras: Case Study in the City of Bellevue (WA) 

United States. https://bellevuewa.gov/sites/default/files/

media/pdf_document/2020/TRB-Accepted-Paper-2021-

Video-Surrogate-Safety-Analysis-Bellevue.pdf.

25 State of Washington. (2022). Certification of Enrollment 

Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill. https://lawfilesext.leg.

wa.gov/biennium/2021-22/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Passed%20

Legislature/5974-S.PL.pdf?q=20220328145651
107

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

European Union Case Studies

Key Successes

Through strategies such as traffic calming, creation of lower speed zones, lighting of pedestrian crossings, 

improvement of roadway accessibility, construction of raised crosswalks, dedicated bicycle facilities, prioritization 

of high-crash locations, and post-crash response, the number of road deaths in Europe dropped by 36 percent 

from 2010 to 2020.(1)

 A few key successes from European urban areas include the following:

• Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain: The city has experienced zero road fatalities for 12 years straight.(2)

• Gothenburg, Sweden: It is estimated that four out of five injuries sustained on the city’s roads do not 

involve a car occupant. Single bicycle or single pedestrian injuries account for 80 percent of all serious or 

moderate injuries sustained.(3)

• Malopolska, Poland: The city’s pilot program, which includes systemic illumination of pedestrian 

crossings, reduction of speed limits before all pedestrian crossings, prevention programs aimed at 

pedestrians, and post-crash response psychological help for victims and families of victims, was adopted in 

the entire country in 2021.(4)

• Czech Republic: The estimated annual average decrease in the number of deaths on urban roads from 

2010–2017 was 5.5 percent. The proportion of drivers going above the speed limit in urban areas by more 

than 10 km/h (6 mph) decreased from 9 percent in 2014 to 6 percent in 2018.(5 )

The Safe System Approach Highlights

• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: The European Union (EU) has the ultimate goal of eliminating 

traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2050.

• Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: The EU has instituted a number of countermeasures 

to alleviate human error and vulnerability, including vehicle safety requirements; modal priority for 

road users, the hierarchy being based on safety, vulnerability, and sustainability (with walking as the top 

priority); creation of lower speed zones; pedestrian and bicyclist improvements (lighting of pedestrian 

crossings, raised crosswalks, dedicated bicycle facilities, etc.); traffic calming to reduce speeds; post-care 

response efforts.

• Responsibility is shared: The EU works closely on road safety with the authorities in its member countries 

by adopting laws, providing funding, supporting public education campaigns, and helping member 

countries and other road safety actors share relevant experience.

• Safety is proactive: The EU installs systemic improvements including roundabout construction, raised 

crosswalks, pedestrian lighting, improvement of roadway accessibility.

• Redundancy is crucial: The EU focuses on engineering countermeasures, lighting of pedestrian crossings, 

educational safety programs, enforcement, and post-crash response improvements.
108

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Background

Cities and towns account for 72 percent of the population of the EU.(6) In 2010, the EU committed to reducing road 

deaths by 50 percent compared to 2010 levels by 2020.(7)

 With the ultimate goal of eliminating road deaths and 

serious injuries by 2050, the European Commission has put together a Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 

to set intermediate targets to halve the number of fatalities and serious injuries on European roads by 2030. The 

EU has adopted the Vision Zero and Safe System Approach to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on European 

roads.(8)

The European Union works closely on road safety with the authorities in its member countries. It seeks to build 

on national initiatives, setting targets and addressing crash contributing factors. The EU adopts laws, provides 

funding, supports public education campaigns, and helps member countries and other road safety actors share 

relevant experience.

The European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) published a report in 2019 with a focus on urban road safety in the 

EU. The report showed that, in urban centers, 70 percent of reported road deaths involved pedestrians, cyclists, 

and power-two-wheeler (PTW) riders.(9)

 Further, 35 to 75 percent of observed vehicle speeds in free-flowing traffic 

in urban areas were higher than the legal speed limit. The report’s main recommendations for cities and towns 

included the following:(10)

• Adopt a local road safety strategy based on the Safe System Approach, set road safety targets, and dedicate 

an appropriate budget.

• Include road safety as an essential component in developing and implementing Sustainable Urban Mobility 

Plans (SUMPs).

• Adopt and promote a policy of modal priority for road users, the hierarchy being based on safety, 

vulnerability, and sustainability. Walking should be at the top of the hierarchy, followed by cycling and use 

of public transport.

• Establish clear urban road hierarchies which better match road function to speed limit, layout, and design 

based on the principles of the Safe System Approach.

• Adopt 30 km/h (19 mph) zones supported by traffic calming measures in residential areas, areas used by 

many pedestrians, and cyclists and on the way to schools.

• Introduce vehicle safety requirements, such as direct vision, Intelligent Speed Assistance, Automated 

Emergency Braking with pedestrian and cyclist detection, and alcohol interlocks in public procurement 

requirements for city services (e.g. waste trucks, public transport buses).

Implementation and Outcomes

The Netherlands was one of the first nations to develop and implement the Safe System Approach. Examples of 

projects implemented over the years by the Netherlands include reducing the speed limit of city access roads 

to 30 km/h (19 mph) and main roads to 50 km/h (31 mph), with separated bicycle lanes and other interventions 

to avoid crashes between motorized traffic and bicycles. The operational design criteria and determination of 

speed limits in the Netherlands occur after a categorization of the road, which involves examination of the road 

network to determine the road functional classification (flow versus access). In the urban core, high speed roads 

are enforced with cameras, whereas low speed roads are enforced by design (with traffic calming measures such 

as speed humps).(11)
109

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Following the EU commitment to reduce road deaths by 50 percent by 2020, several countries, cities, and 

towns adopted the 2011-2020 EU road safety program. From 2010 to 2020, the number of road deaths in 

Europe dropped by 36 percent.(12)

 A few noteworthy practices that incorporated elements from the Safe System 

Approach to improve safety in the urban core are described below:

2021 EU Vision Zero Municipal Award Winner: Torrejon de Ardoz, Spain

Torrejon de Ardoz is a municipality of approximately 130,000 residents in the Community of Madrid, Spain. For 

the last decade, city officials have focused on promoting Torrejon as a safe and enjoyable place rather than just a 

place to sleep. Traffic safety has been the city’s priority since 2007.(13)

Torrejon has a Pedestrian Safety Plan (Plan Seguridad Viandantes) and an Accessibility Plan (Plan de Eliminación 

de Barreras Arquitectónica).(14, 15)

 The city’s strategies to improve safety include the following:(16)

• Systemic replacement of traffic signals with roundabouts: The roundabouts are flat, without raised 

centers, plants, or fountains, which is cost-effective. Barriers separate the sidewalk from the road to inhibit 

pedestrians from taking a shortcut across the roundabout.

• Systemic lighting improvements of pedestrian crossings: This effort has been implemented citywide to 

increase pedestrian visibility.

• Prioritization of pedestrian crossings: Construction of raised crosswalks at hundreds of locations based on 

citizen feedback.

• Dedicated bicycle facilities: The “Anillo Ciclista” includes 13.4 km (8.3 mi) of separated bicycle facilities that 

connects hospitals, train stations, parks, recreational facilities, and cultural centers.

• Prioritization of hotspots: city police identifies high-crash locations, which are made top priority when 

defining safety measures.

• Bicycle parking: Free-of-charge bicycle parking facilities at railway stations to encourage cycling and transit 

use rather than automobile use.

• Community participation: The city administration involves residents in its planning consultations. Also, 

because the city’s future will be in the hands of its children, road safety education is provided at schools 

from an early age. The education program is completed by 5,500 children each year.

Torrejon de Ardoz has experienced zero road fatalities for 12 years in a row. The city was the recipient of the 2021 

EU Vision Zero Municipal Award Winner.(17)

 The city has adopted a Sustainable Mobility Plan for 2021 to 2030 that 

focuses on vulnerable road user safety.(18)

Gothenburg, Sweden

With the implementation of traffic calming and separation of vulnerable road users from motorized traffic, motor 

vehicle traffic shifted from local city roads to arterial or national roads, which is where possible conflicts with 

pedestrians or cyclists are less frequent. Lower speeds and reductions in motorized traffic encouraged citizens 

to walk and cycle more often. It is estimated that four out of five injuries sustained on the city’s roads do not 

involve a car. Single bicycle or single pedestrian injuries account for 80 percent of all serious or moderate injuries 

sustained.(19)
110

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Malopolska, Poland

In 2018, approximately 70 percent of pedestrian crashes in Malopolska, Poland, occurred around pedestrian 

crossings. Improvements included a systemic illumination of pedestrian crossings, reduction of speed limits 

before all pedestrian crossings, prevention programs, and post-crash response psychological help for victims and 

families of victims. In 2021, the Polish government applied the Malopolska program to the entire country, with a 

separate budget for county roads and municipal roads. Also in 2021, Poland introduced a set of legal changes in 

the country’s Traffic Code referring to pedestrian safety (including priority of pedestrians approaching pedestrian 

crossings and a ban on phone use while crossing the road), maximum speed limit of 50 km/h (31 mph) in the 

urban core, regulations regarding e-scooters and safe distance between vehicles, as well as very strict penalties in 

the Penal Code for any offenses and crime on roads.(20)

Additional Information

In addition to these efforts, a few examples of national implementation of safety countermeasures are applicable 

to the urban core. Czech Republic implementation of traffic calming measures, upgrades of pavements, building 

of cycling infrastructure, illumination of pedestrian crossings, speed enforcement by safety cameras, and police 

roadside checks resulted in an estimated annual average decrease in the number of deaths on urban roads from 

2010-2017 of 5.5 percent. Further, the proportion of drivers going above the speed limit in urban areas by more 

than 10 km/h (6 mph) decreased from 9 percent in 2014 to 6 percent in 2018.(21)

 In Georgia, the creation of a single 

crash response number and the establishment of a Public Safety Command Center have increased the capacity 

to contact emergency assistance, increased accessibility for people with disabilities, improved the geo-location 

of incidents, and reduced dispatch times.(22)

 In Moldova, the adoption of a single crash response and dispatch 

number, enforcement projects, road infrastructure projects, and road safety education programs contributed to 

a 44-percent decrease in crashes from 2010-2021. The post-crash response program in Moldova contributed to 

reductions in incident response times from an average of 60 minutes in 2009 to less than 15 minutes in 2018.(23)

The EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030 states that EU funding is an important lever to prepare future 

road safety solutions and accelerate the delivery of road safety results. A few funding options described in the 

policy include the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), Cohesion Fund, Connecting Europe Facility 

(CEF), and the “Safer Transport Platform” (a one-stop-shop for road safety investment under the support of the 

European Investment Advisory Hub (EIAH). For more information, contact Antonio Avenoso, ETSC Executive 

Director, at antonio.avenoso@etsc.eu or Veronique Feypell, International Transport Forum (ITF) Research Centre 

Administrator, at veronique.feypell@itf-oecd.org.
111

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

1 European Commission. (2021). Road Safety: 4,000 Fewer People 

Lost Their Lives On EU Roads In 2020 As Death Rate Falls To 

All-Time Low. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/

detail/en/IP_21_1767.

2 European Portal for Cities and Citizens. (2021). Torrejon De 

Ardoz: The Safest European City in Terms of Traffic Incidents. 

https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/torrejon-de-ardoz-thesafest-european-city-in-terms-of-traffic-incidents-9681.

3 European Transport Safety Council. (2019). Safer Roads, Safer 

Cities: How to Improve Urban Road Safety. https://etsc.eu/wpcontent/uploads/PIN-FLASH-37-FINAL.pdf.

4 Information provided by correspondence with ITF in April 

2022. For further information, contact Veronique Feypell, ITF 

Research Centre Administrator, at veronique.feypell@itf-oecd.

org.

5 Ibid.

6 European Commission. (2016). The State of European Cities. 

https://bit.ly/2Umg2Fu.

7 European Commission. (2010). Towards a European Road Safety 

Area: Policy Orientations on Road Safety 2011-2020.

8 European Commission. (2020). Next Steps Towards ‘Vision 

Zero’: EU Road Safety Policy Framework 2021-2030. https://data.

europa.eu/doi/10.2832/261629.

9 European Transport Safety Council. (2019). Safer Roads, Safer 

Cities: How to Improve Urban Road Safety. https://etsc.eu/wpcontent/uploads/PIN-FLASH-37-FINAL.pdf.

10 Ibid.

11 Information provided by correspondence with ITF in April 

2022. For further information, contact Veronique Feypell, ITF 

Research Centre Administrator, at veronique.feypell@itf-oecd.

org.

12 European Commission. (2021). Road Safety: 4,000 Fewer People 

Lost Their Lives On EU Roads In 2020 As Death Rate Falls To 

All-Time Low. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/

detail/en/IP_21_1767.

13 DEKRA Solutions. (2018). Joy Through Safety. https://www.

dekra-solutions.com/2018/11/joy-through-safety/?lang=en.

14 Ayuntamiento de Torrejon de Ardoz. (2022). Pasos Iluminados.

https://www.ayto-torrejon.es/index.php/concejalias/obras/

pasos-iluminados.

15 Torrejon Noticias. (2018). Torrejón De Ardoz Mejora La

Accesibilidad En Diversas Zonas Del Municipio Gracias Al Plan 

De Eliminación De Barreras Arquitectónicas. https://www.

torrejonnoticias.es/actualidad-noticias-torrejon-ardoz/1503-

torrejon-de-ardoz-mejora-la-accesibilidad-en-diversas-zonasdel-municipio-gracias-al-plan-de-eliminacion-de-barrerasarquitectonicas.html.

16 Ayuntamiento de Torrejon de Ardoz. (2022). Obras. https://

www.ayto-torrejon.es/index.php/concejalias/obras.

17 European Portal for Cities and Citizens. (2021). Torrejon De 

Ardoz: The Safest European City in Terms of Traffic Incidents. 

https://www.themayor.eu/en/a/view/torrejon-de-ardoz-thesafest-european-city-in-terms-of-traffic-incidents-9681.

18 Ayuntamiento de Torrejon de Ardoz. (2020). Plan de Movilidad 

Urbana Sostenible. https://www.ayto-torrejon.es/sites/default/

files/inline-files/PMUS%2005_08_2021_DEF.pdf.

19 European Transport Safety Council. (2019). Safer Roads, Safer 

Cities: How to Improve Urban Road Safety. https://etsc.eu/wpcontent/uploads/PIN-FLASH-37-FINAL.pdf.

20 Information provided by correspondence with ITF in April 

2022. For further information, contact Veronique Feypell, ITF 

Research Centre Administrator, at veronique.feypell@itf-oecd.

org.

21 Ibid.

22 Ibid.

23 Ibid.

References

113

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

South America Case Studies

Key Successes

Case studies in South America showed that safety concerns were mostly related to speeding and vulnerable road 

users in the urban core. A few success stories from the cities of Bogotá, Colombia; São Paulo, Brazil; and Salvador, 

Brazil are summarized below:

• Bogotá: The city’s speed management program 

resulted in approximately 11 percent reduction 

in road fatalities.(1)

• São Paulo: Improvements in road design, as 

shown in Figure 1, signage, and pedestrian 

crossing times resulted in a 68 percent reduction 

in fatalities in one year at the M’Boi Mirim 

Corridor.(2)

• Salvador: Infrastructure modifications on 

arterial roads and speed limit enforcement 

technologies resulted in a 54-percent decrease 

in fatal traffic crashes.(3)

The Safe System Approach Highlights

• Death/serious injury is unacceptable: The city committed to Vision Zero plans.

• Humans make mistakes/humans are vulnerable: Planned improvements included reduction of 

maximum road posted speeds, speed limit enforcement technologies, pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure 

redesign, traffic calming measures, dedicated bus lane networks for road user separation in space.

• Responsibility is shared: The city focused on development of road safety plans that involved the 

community, public agencies, and stakeholders. Plans used a combination of engineering, driver education, 

and enforcement measures to reduce speeds.

• Safety is proactive: Enhancements focused on systemic reduction of speed limits and systemic traffic 

signal system improvements.

• Redundancy is crucial: The city’s speed management program included engineering, education, and 

enforcement efforts to lower speeds. It also used mass media campaigns and trained journalists to help 

educate citizens on road safety.

Source: Joana Oliveira/WRI Brasil 2019.

Figure 1. Image. Renovated and widened sidewalks at 

Joel Carlos Borges Street in São Paulo. 
114

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Bogotá, Colombia

Background

The city of Bogotá, which has a population of almost 7.5 million, is the capital of Colombia and one of the largest 

cities in the world. Bogotá launched its Vision Zero Road Safety Plan in 2017 and its main element is a speed 

management program (SMP).(4, 5) The Vision Zero Road Safety Plan identified speed as one of the main road safety 

issues to be addressed in Bogotá. In 2016, vulnerable road users accounted for 96 percent of all fatality victims 

and 72 percent of all fatalities occurred on arterial roads.(6)

Implementation

The SMP comprises more than lowering speed limits and includes efforts in engineering, education, and 

enforcement. The SMP began implementation by lowering the speed limit from 60km/h (37 mph) to 50km/h 

(31 mph) on five arterial corridors, which presented the highest rates of road traffic victims and fatalities. These 

pilot programs and temporary interventions were used to test and improve methodologies and actions. After 

the five initial corridors, another five were added to the program. The strategies applied in the corridors were 

mostly posting speed limit signs complemented with speed cameras and police enforcement and accompanied 

by a communication strategy. The 50 km/h (31 mph) speed limit has since been expanded across the city as the 

maximum speed limit on most arterial roads.(7)

The speed management program also introduced low-speed zones in residential neighborhoods, around schools, 

and in commercial areas. More than 2,000 school zones and other local streets have new infrastructure and signs 

stating a maximum speed of 30 km/h (19 mph). Other infrastructure design changes, such as fewer travel lanes, 

smaller turning radii, and speed bumps, force drivers to travel at lower speeds.

Outcomes

In the first seven months of 2019, the number of deaths reported in Bogotá was the lowest in a decade. Road 

deaths dropped 11 percent compared to the same period in 2018 and 2019, and 12 percent compared to 

the average number of fatalities between 2014 and 2018. From 2018 to 2019, the largest reductions were in 

motorcyclist (28 percent) and pedestrian (17 percent) fatalities.(8 )

In the first half of 2020 there was a 33 percent reduction in fatalities compared to the first semester of 2019, and 

in the first 14 months after implementation (October 2018-December 2019), 46 lives were estimated to have been 

saved. From May to December 2020, there was a reduction of 56 fatalities compared to the same period 2017-

2019 average. Since the plan was executed, the city has saved US $12.6 million in cost represented in property 

damages, medical, administrative, and human costs.(9)
115

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

São Paulo, Brazil

Background

With a population of almost 12.5 million (eighth largest in the world), the city of São Paulo works towards making 

its streets safe for all road users. In April 2019, São Paulo became the first Brazilian city to establish a road safety 

plan based on the Safe System Approach. The plan, known as Vida Segura (Safe Life), set a goal of reducing the 

traffic fatality rate by more than half in 10 years, to 3 deaths per 100,000 people. The plan is the result of one year 

of work, with the involvement of 200 people, 15 public agencies, and more than 50 contributors to prepare the 

final text. It was also supported by the Bloomberg Initiative for Global Road Safety.(10)

Implementation

Vida Segura rests on four crucial aspects:

• Using open data to drive solutions:

Data is vital to diagnosing and designing 

evidence-based interventions. Vida 

Segura establishes an open digital 

platform that contains data from radar 

equipment available to the public.

• Redesigning streets for the most 

vulnerable: São Paulo is beginning its 

infrastructure redesign by targeting 

the high-risk corridors in the city. Plans 

include low-speed zones as shown in 

Figure 2, safe school routes, renovated 

and widened sidewalks, expanded 

cycle infrastructure, improved signage, 

increased crossing times, and increased enforcement.

• Reclassifying roads to manage speeds: In the Vida Segura Plan, São Paulo has committed to reviewing 

the classifications of its roads according to the Safe System Approach, which is prioritizing the safety of all 

users instead of just vehicles. In keeping with the World Health Organization’s recommendation to limit 

maximum speeds to 50 kilometers per hour within the urban perimeter, the city plans to set that maximum 

speed limit for arterial roads, dropping it to 40 kilometers per hour for collector roads, and 30 kilometers 

per hour for local roads. High-speed roads that lack safe infrastructure for pedestrians and other nonvehicle users will be reclassified as arterials.

• Building support and capacity: city staff (decision makers, architects, planners) will also need to be 

trained to develop their activities according to the Safe System Approach and to help implement new 

measures such as road safety audits. While most Brazilian cities still lack capacity for road safety audits, 

São Paulo plans to use them to identify safety issues with existing projects and roadways and to provide 

recommendations for mitigating risks at key sites.

Source: Joana Oliveira/WRI Brasil 2019.

Figure 2. Image. Low-speed zone at the Santana neighborhood 

in São Paulo. 
116

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Outcomes

Implementation of São Paulo’s Road Safety Plan near-term goals and actions were notably impacted by the 

COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, information and data on outcomes and implementation are limited. São Paulo 

began its infrastructure redesign by targeting the high-risk corridors in the city. Plans included low-speed 

zones, safe school routes, renovated and widened sidewalks, expanded cycle infrastructure, improved signage, 

increased crossing times, and increased enforcement. These interventions have already been successfully 

deployed in the busy M’Boi Mirim Corridor, where improvements in road design, signage, crossing times and 

other areas resulted in a 68 percent reduction in fatalities in just one year.(11)

Salvador, Brazil

Background

With a population of almost three million, Salvador is the fourth largest city in Brazil. Since 2013, Salvador began 

implementing the Vida no Trânsito (Life in Transit) program, an initiative created by the Brazilian Ministry of 

Health in partnership with the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). The program uses data analysis to 

guide decision-making and includes traffic calming measures, driver education, and greater enforcement of 

speeding and drunk driving laws. In 2020, Salvador joined the Bloomberg Initiative for Global Road Safety and 

is now targeting reducing motorcyclist deaths in the city. Of the total traffic deaths in 2020, 38 percent were 

motorcyclists. Cyclist and pedestrian safety also continue to be prioritized by the city.(12)

Implementation

The greatest obstacle the city faced to 

implementing the Life in Transit program was 

a lack of standardized data and integrated 

information system that made it difficult to 

diagnose the city’s road safety problems. 

The program’s first steps included collecting 

and analyzing data on traffic events and 

their contributing factors, which were then 

used to design evidence-based measures to 

prevent road traffic injuries and fatalities at 

hotspots. With this new data, Salvador began 

implementing infrastructure modifications 

on arterial roads, such as adding raised 

crosswalks, and installing speed limit 

enforcement technologies.(13)

 Salvador 

also undertook a widespread educational 

campaign for students. With the UN’s Second 

Decade of Action, Salvador is expanding its work into motorcycle safety and low-speed zones through “Zonas 

30.” In the Bonfim neighborhood shown in Figure 3, the low-speed zone saw great results with a 77 percent 

reduction in vehicles exceeding the speed limit in the area and 91 percent overall compliance.()

Source: Global Design Cities Initiative 2020.

Figure 3. Image. Low-speed zone improvements in the 

Bonfim neighborhood in Salvador. 
117

APPENDIX - SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH FOR THE URBAN CORE INFORMATIONAL REPORT

Outcomes

In 2010, Salvador recorded 266 fatal traffic crashes. By 2017, fatalities had dropped to 121, a decrease of 54 percent. 

The city then became one of the few to successfully meet the UN 2011-2020 Decade of Action for Road Safety 

goal. In 2020, Salvador recorded 126 traffic deaths, demonstrating that their efforts continue to achieve results. 

As of 2021, Salvador had a rate of 5.2 traffic deaths per 100,000 inhabitants, three times less than the national 

average.(14)

Additional Information

For more information regarding Safe System implementation in South America, contact the World Resources 

Institute team: Claudia Adriazola-Steil (claudia.adriazola@wri.org), Alejandro Schwedhelm (alejandro.

schwedhelm@wri.org), or Hannah Ohlund (hannah.ohlund@wri.org).

References 

1 Puentes, A. (2020). Bogotá Se Ahorró 12 Millones De Dólares Al 

Bajar La Velocidad Vial. https://www.eltiempo.com/Bogotá/

Bogotá-beneficios-economicos-de-reducir-la-velocidad-enla-ciudad-526930.

2 Obelheiro, M., Lemos, D., Felin, B., and Adriazola-Steil, C. 

(2019). Vida Segura: How São Paulo Plans to Cut Traffic Fatalities 

by Half in 10 Years. https://thecityfix.com/blog/vida-segurasao-paulo-plans-cut-traffic-fatalities-half-10-years-martaobelheiro-diogo-dias-lemos-bruno-felin/.

3 Pan American Health Organization. (2020). Salvador, La Capital 

Brasileña Que Redujo Más De 50% Las Muertes En El Tránsito.

https://www.paho.org/es/historias/salvador-capital-brasilenaque-redujo-mas-50-muertes-transito.

4 Bogotá, Colombia. (2017). Bogotá Vision Cero. https://www.

movilidadbogota.gov.co/web/node/1605.

5 Bogotá, Colombia. (2019). Bogotá Speed Management 

Program (SMP). https://www.itf-oecd.org/Bogotás-speedmanagement-program-presentation-natalia-lleras-wri-rosscenter-sustainable-cities.

6 Alcaldía Mayor de Bogotá, Bogotá, Colombia. (2018). Plan 

Distrital de Seguridad Vial 2017-2026.

7 López, J., Pérez-Barbosa, D., Lleras, N., Hidalgo, D., and 

Adriazola-Steil, C. (2021). Effects of Reducing and Enforcing 

Speed Limits in Selected Areas of Bogotá. International Journal 

of Engineering, Social Justice and Peace, 8(2), pages 50-71. 

https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/IJESJP/article/

download/14276/9836/35007.

8 Puentes, A. (2020). Bogotá Se Ahorró 12 Millones De Dólares Al 

Bajar La Velocidad Vial. https://www.eltiempo.com/Bogotá/

Bogotá-beneficios-economicos-de-reducir-la-velocidad-enla-ciudad-526930.

9 Ibid.

10 São Paulo, Brazil. (2019). City of São Paulo – Mobility and 

Transport. Road Safety Plan. https://www.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/

cidade/secretarias/upload/chamadas/plano_de_segurana_

viaria_pmsp_2019_web_1558984227.pdf.

11 Obelheiro, M., Lemos, D., Felin, B., and Adriazola-Steil, C. 

(2019). Vida Segura: How São Paulo Plans to Cut Traffic Fatalities 

by Half in 10 Years. https://thecityfix.com/blog/vida-segurasao-paulo-plans-cut-traffic-fatalities-half-10-years-martaobelheiro-diogo-dias-lemos-bruno-felin/.

12 Silva, M., Neto, O., Lima, C., Malta, D., and da Silva Jr., J. (2013). 

Projeto Vida no Trânsito – 2010 a 2012: Uma Contribuição para 

a Década de Ações para a Segurança no Trânsito 2011-2020 no 

Brasil. http://scielo.iec.gov.br/pdf/ess/v22n3/v22n3a19.pdf.

13 Pan American Health Organization. (2020). Salvador, La Capital 

Brasileña Que Redujo Más De 50% Las Muertes En El Tránsito.

https://www.paho.org/es/historias/salvador-capital-brasilenaque-redujo-mas-50-muertes-transito.

14 Pan American Health Organization. (2020). Salvador, La Capital 

Brasileña Que Redujo Más De 50% Las Muertes En El Tránsito.

https://www.paho.org/es/historias/salvador-capital-brasilenaque-redujo-mas-50-muertes-transito.


U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov

October 2023

FHWA-SA-23-001