Safety Evaluations of Innovative 

Intersection Designs for 

Pedestrians and Bicyclists

FHWA Publication No.: FHWA-HRT-23-033

FHWA Contact: Wei Zhang (ORCID: 0000-0002-5175-7527), 

HRSO-10, (202) 493-3317, wei.zhang@dot.gov

This document is a technical summary of the Federal 

Highway Administration report Safety Evaluations of 

Innovative Intersection Designs for Pedestrians and 

Bicyclists (FHWA-HRT-23-033).

INTRODUCTION

Traffic professionals are exploring innovative intersection designs to 

determine if they can successfully accommodate multimodal transportation 

by reducing conflicts between moving vehicles and vulnerable road users or 

by lowering the impact force (reducing the vehicle speed and changing the 

collision angle in the event of a collision).

The objective of this Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project was to 

investigate the operational and safety improvements of innovative intersection 

retrofitting designs that benefit pedestrians and bicyclists while maintaining 

a reasonable service to motor vehicles. The project included summarizing 

previous research efforts, developing three design types, identifying potential 

study sites (both before-after and comparison-existing pairs), and collecting 

operational behaviors of the users.

These types of intersections have several names, including innovative 

intersection, protected intersection, dedicated intersection, Dutch intersection, 

and Dutch-style junction. The term protected intersection is used in the text of 

this document.

SITE IDENTIFICATION

With the goal of conducting 15 before-after evaluations representing a total 

of 30 site periods (15 sites multiplied by 2 periods, before and after), a key 

component of the study was to identify the study site before the treatment 

had been installed so that before data could be collected. The research study 

was also bound by a fixed end date, so the installation of the treatment had 

to occur in sufficient time to permit adequate time to collect the after data, 

to conduct the analysis, and to complete the required study documentation 

before the end date of the contract. With these restrictions, six study sites 

were identified where both before data and after data could be collected 

within the contract limits. These 6 sites represented 12 site periods, resulting 

in a need of 18 additional site periods. The remaining intersections to be 

selected either already had the treatment (14 intersections) or served as 

a comparison to nearby sites with existing treatments (4 intersections). 

Table 1 lists the sites included in this project, including 6 before-after sites 

(for 12 site periods), 4 comparison sites (i.e., untreated intersections), and 

TECHBRIEF

Research, Development, 

and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway 

Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296

https://highways.dot.gov/research
2

Table 1. Study sites selected for project.

SITE CONDITION CONTROL PSL-NB (MPH) PSL-SB (MPH) PSL-EB (MPH) PSL-WB (MPH)

CA–BER–01 Existing Signal 25 25 25 25

CA–FRE–01 Existing Signal 25 30b 35b 35

CA–FRE–02 Existing Signal 30 30 35 35

CA–FRE–03 Existing Signal 25 25 35 35

CA–FRE–04 Existing Signal 25a 25a 25 25

CA–FRE–05 Compare Signal 35 35 30 30

CA–FRE–05 Existing Signal 35 35 35 30

CA–FRE–06 Existing Signal 35 NAc 40 45

CA–FRE–07 Compare Signal 35 NAc 40 45

CA–FRE–07 Existing Signal 40 40 NAc 45

CA–FRE–09 Existing Signal 25a 25 40 40

CA–FRE–11 Before-after Signal 35 40 35 35

CA–FRE–12 Before-after Signal 35 40 35 35

DC–WAS–01 Before-after All-way stop 25a 25 25a 25a

DC–WAS–02 Before-after All-way stop 25a 25 25a 25a

DC–WAS–03 Before-after Signal 25a 25a 25 25a

MD–SSP–01 Existing Signal 25 30 25 30

MD–SSP–02 Before-after Signal 25a 25a 25 25a

TX–AUS–16 Compare Signal 35 35 35d 35d

12 existing (or treated) intersections. In most cases, the 

intersection traffic control was a traffic signal, only 4 of 

the 24 intersections had an all-way stop sign for traffic 

control. All but one of the intersections had four legs. 

The posted speed limit (PSL) on the approaches was 

generally 25–40 mph with a few at 20 mph or 45 mph. 

Table 2 provides the data collection dates for each site 

period along with the street names for the intersection. 
3

Table 2. Dates data collected at each study site.

SITE–PERIOD INTERSECTION DATA COLLECTION DATE

CA–BER–01–Exi Alameda and Hopkins 8/31/21

CA–FRE–01–Exi Walnut Ave and Galluadet Dr 9/1/21

CA–FRE–02–Exi Walnut Ave and Guardino Dr 8/30/21

CA–FRE–03–Exi Walnut Ave and Civic Center Dr 8/23/21

CA–FRE–04–Exi Civic Center Dr and Bart Way 8/27/21

CA–FRE–05–Com Walnut Ave and Fremont 8/24/21

CA–FRE–05–Exi Walnut Ave and Paseo Padre Pkwy 8/25/21

CA–FRE–06–Exi Cushing Pkwy and Northport Loop W 8/18/21

CA–FRE–07–Com Cushing Pkwy and Fremont Blvd 8/19/21

CA–FRE–07–Exi Cushing Pkwy and Northport Loop E 8/17/21

CA–FRE–09–Exi Grimmer and Wisdom Way 11/21/21

3

Table 1. Study sites selected for project. (Continued)

SITE CONDITION CONTROL PSL-NB (MPH) PSL-SB (MPH) PSL-EB (MPH) PSL-WB (MPH)

TX–AUS–16 Existing Signal 40b 40b 40 35

TX–CST–01 Existing All-way stop 25 NAc 30 20

UT–SLC–01 Compare Signal 25 25a 20 20

UT–SLC–01 Existing Signal 25 25 20 20

UT–SLC–03 Existing All-way stop 30 25 25 25

a

Assumed speed limit based on local conditions because a speed limit sign was not identified near the intersection.

b

Approach also had a 25-mph school speed limit.

c

No speed limit as approach was either a driveway or not present.

d

Approach also had a 20-mph school speed limit.

NB = northbound; SB = southbound; EB = eastbound; WB = westbound; NA = not applicable; CA = California; BER = Berkeley; FRE = Fremont; 

DC = District of Columbia; WAS = Washington; MD = Maryland; SSP = Silver Springs; TX = Texas; AUS = Austin; CST = College Station; 

UT = Utah; SLC = Salt Lake City.
4

Table 2. Dates data collected at each study site. (Continued)

SITE–PERIOD INTERSECTION DATA COLLECTION DATE

CA–FRE–11–Aft Fremont Blvd and Mowry Ave 11/22/21

CA–FRE–11–Bef Fremont Blvd and Mowry Ave 12/15/20

CA–FRE–12–Aft Fremont Blvd and Stevenson 11/20/21

CA–FRE–12–Bef Fremont Blvd and Stevenson 12/15/20

DC–WAS–01–Aft 1st St SE/Potomac Ave and L 10/13/21

DC–WAS–01–Bef 1st St SE/Potomac Ave and L 10/13/20

DC–WAS–02–Aft 1st St SE/Potomac Ave and K 10/13/21

DC–WAS–02–Bef 1st St SE/Potomac Ave and K 10/14/20

DC–WAS–03–Aft K St NE/NW and 5th 10/12/21

DC–WAS–03–Bef K St NE/NW and 5th 10/15/20

MD–SSP–01–Exi Spring St and 2nd Ave 12/10/20

MD–SSP–02–Aft Fenton & Cameron 6/7/22

MD–SSP–02–Bef Fenton & Cameron 12/10/20

TX–AUS–16–Com Escarpment Blvd and Davis 6/21/21

TX–AUS–16–Exi Escarpment Blvd and La Crosse Ave 6/21/21

TX–CST–01–Exi Bizzell and Ross 1/26/22

UT–SLC–01–Com Temple and Broadway 11/18/21

UT–SLC–01–Exi Broadway (also known as 300 South) 

and 200 West 11/17/21

UT–SLC–03–Exi 700 South and 300 East 11/19/21

CA = California; BER = Berkeley; FRE = Fremont; DC = District of Columbia; WAS = Washington; MD = Maryland; SSP = Silver Springs; 

TX = Texas; AUS = Austin; CST = College Station; UT = Utah; SLC = Salt Lake City; Aft = after; Bef = before; Exi = existing; 

Com = comparison. 
5

DATA COLLECTION

For each site period, data were collected using video 

obtained either from cameras installed on a pole or on a 

rooftop at the site, or from drones.

For the Washington, DC, sites, the research team installed 

four video cameras on streetlight poles on October 12 or 

October 13, 2020, to capture the before modifications 

condition. The installations occurred October 20 to 22, 2021, 

for the after condition. Each camera covered one crosswalk 

at the intersection. Figure 1 shows the video from one of 

the cameras.

Figure 1. Photo. Example of video view for one of the cameras at DC‒WAS‒03‒Aft (after). 

Source: FHWA.

Figure 2. Photo. Example of view for rooftop camera at MD‒SSP‒02‒Aft. 

Source: FHWA.

For the College Station, TX, site, a camera used to 

monitor traffic conditions on campus was used to collect 

the video data. The video for MD‒SSP‒02 was a mix 

of drone video and video recorded from the top story of 

a parking garage. Figure 2 provides an example of the 

video view from the rooftop camera.

For the remaining study site, video data were collected 

using a drone-mounted video camera. The drone-enabled 

camera permitted all crosswalk data to be collected in one 

view. Figure 3 shows an example.
6

OBSERVATIONS

Because the accuracy of identifying vulnerable users using 

software to process the video was not sufficient, technicians 

watched the video and recorded user behaviors. Behaviors 

for 23,505 vulnerable users were recorded for the 30 site 

periods. The behaviors reviewed in this study included the 

following: change in volume; conflicts between vulnerable 

users and motorized vehicles; typical travel paths for the 

vulnerable users (including whether the bicyclists rode 

through pylons); waiting locations for the vulnerable users; 

and motorist right-turn behaviors, such as turning speed and 

driving on aprons or in bike queue areas.

Key Observations on User Behaviors 

(Other than Right-Turning Speed)

The key observations from this research effort included 

the following: 

• Overall, pedestrians were more likely to interact 

with a vehicle (33 percent of the pedestrian crossings 

involved a vehicle) compared to bicyclists interacting 

with a vehicle (19 percent of bicyclist crossings).

• Drivers yielded to bicyclists and pedestrians more 

at the treated sites compared to the untreated sites. 

For bicyclist crossings, 38 percent of the crossings 

for treated sites compared to 34 percent for sites that 

were not treated involved a vehicle yielding to the 

bicyclist. In the majority of the bicyclist crossings 

(46 percent of the bicyclist crossings for treated 

and 46 percent for nontreated intersections), a 

vehicle was not involved. For pedestrian crossings, 

the comparison is 23 percent for treated sites 

compared to 16 percent for untreated sites.

Figure 3. Photo. Example of view from drone camera of CA‒FRE‒11‒Aft.

Source: FHWA.

• The treatment was designed to slow turning vehicles 

and provide drivers additional opportunity to see the 

crossing vulnerable user. The addition of the treatment 

at three of the before-after sites with traffic control 

signals resulted in more frequent yielding by drivers 

to pedestrians (41 percent in the before period to 

47 percent in the after period).

• For the six before-after sites, the percentage of 

bicyclists riding from one bike lane to another bike 

lane increased from 13 percent to 52 percent, while the 

percent riding from one sidewalk to another sidewalk 

decreased from 21 percent to 12 percent. More of the 

bicyclists were in the space designed for their use after 

the treatment was installed.

• A greater proportion of the bicyclist’s path through an 

intersection was separated from motorized vehicles 

with the presence of corner islands. At some sites, 

following the intended path resulted in longer travel 

time through the intersection, including having to slow 

to accommodate the bend out and bend in bicycle 

path that can be generated by the location of the 

corner island. With regard to sites with raised islands, 

the majority of the bicyclists (66 percent) did follow 

the marked path and went to the right of the corner 

islands. For those sites where the corner island was 

created using pylons, again, most of the bicyclists 

(58 percent) followed the marked path and went 

to the right of the corner island. A sizable number; 

however, rode through the pylons (19 percent).

• Bicyclists may have wanted to go in the opposite 

direction along a street and appear to have done so 
7

at protected intersections by using the sidewalks and 

crosswalks rather than the bike lane and green marked 

waiting area.

• In some cases, bicyclists were leaving the bike lane and 

entering the sidewalk to use the pedestrian push button.

• The two intersections that converted the right-turn lane 

to the protected intersection treatment had similar trends. 

Most of the pedestrians who waited on the channelizing 

island in the before condition were now waiting in 

the pedestrian ramp area in the after condition. These 

pedestrians did not have to weave through the moving 

right-turning motorized vehicles to reach the refuge area 

where they waited before crossing the intersection.

• The inclusion of truck aprons could facilitate the 

turning of large vehicles while also encouraging 

smaller radius turns for right-turning vehicles.

Observations on Right-Turn Speed

Right-turn speeds were gathered for two before-after 

California sites using computer analysis of the video. Speed 

and headway information were collected with a goal of 

having at least 30 right turning vehicles at each intersection 

corner for each period (before and after). On review of the 

data, the research team decided to remove vehicles that 

were not identified as being a car from the evaluation due 

to small sample sizes for the other vehicle categories.

When drivers turn into a lane other than the one nearest 

to the curb, they are increasing their effective radius. 

The lane the vehicle turned into was considered during 

the analysis. Additional review of a sample of the data 

revealed that the signal indication for the right-turning 

vehicle was needed. The right-turning vehicles were 

included when their signal indication was green.

The research team conducted a regression analysis to 

determine how the corner speed was impacted by the 

vehicle headway, corner radius, and receiving lane. 

The study team added the independent factors of period, 

receiving lane, turning radius, and corner headways 

to the model. The model was done using only cars 

(no motorcycles or heavy vehicles) that had a green signal 

when they arrived at the intersection and turned into 

vehicle receiving lanes (vehicles that turned into parking 

lanes or bike lanes were eliminated).

Fitzpatrick et al. (2022) previously studied right-turn 

speeds at 31 urban intersections in Texas. The path 

(i.e., the receiving lane) followed by the vehicle during 

the turn was used to calculate the vehicle speed and was 

not included in the modeling efforts. Most of the vehicles 

turned into the nearest lane to the curb in that study. From 

those 31 Texas intersections, the variables that impact 

Figure 4. Graph. Comparison of findings between 

this current study (lines with squares, diamonds, 

and triangles) and the Fitzpatrick et al. 2022 study 

(lines with circles).

Source: FHWA.

right-turn speeds included turning radii, vehicle type 

(car or trucks), signal indication at the time of arrival 

(yellow or green), whether the preceding vehicle was 

going straight or turning right, and vehicle headway.

Figure 4 compares the findings between this study and the 

Fitzpatrick et al. (2022) study. The range of radii included 

in the Fitzpatrick study was 15–70 ft, while the range of 

radii included in this evaluation was 22–120 ft. As shown 

in figure 4, the plot of the equation from both studies shows 

similar trends. The current study provided the opportunity 

to illustrate the difference in speeds between vehicles 

turning into different receiving lanes. The middle receiving 

lane (RVL2) and the outer side receiving lane (RVL3) had 

significantly higher turning speed values than the inner side 

receiving lane (RVL1).

This right-turn speed evaluation demonstrated that a 

protected intersection results in reduced turning speeds with 

the installation of smaller corner radii. The key observations 

with regard to right-turning speed are as follows:

• Right-turn speeds are higher at corners with a larger 

corner radius. The receiving lane for the right-turning 

vehicle also influences the right-turn speed, with 

drivers turning faster to the lane that is the furthest 

from the curb.

• Comparing the right-turn speeds before and after the 

installation of the protected intersection treatment at 

two California sites found the following conclusions:

○ With the decrease in corner radius from the before 

period to after period with the installation of the 
8

protected intersection, the average right-turn speeds 

decreased. For example, a corner being changed 

from a 60-ft radius to a 25-ft radius is predicted to 

have about a 2.6 mph decrease in speed.

○ In addition, the range of turning speeds in the 

period after the treatment was installed was 

smaller compared to the before period for most 

of the corners. In other words, the addition of the 

protected intersection treatment is also associated 

with fewer drivers turning at high right-turn speeds.

SUMMARY

Drivers yielded to bicyclists and pedestrians more at the 

treated sites compared to the sites that were not treated. 

Specifically, 38 percent of drivers yielded to bicyclists at 

treated crossings versus 34 percent at untreated crossings; 

23 percent of drivers yielded to pedestrians at treated 

crossings versus 16 percent at untreated crossings.

The treatment is designed to slow turning vehicles and 

provide drivers additional opportunity to see the crossing 

vulnerable user. The addition of the treatment at three of 

the before-after sites with traffic control signals improved 

driver yielding from 41 percent in the before period to 

47 percent in the after period.

For the two intersections that converted the right-turn 

lane to the protected intersection treatment, most of the 

pedestrians who waited on the corner island in the before 

condition were now waiting in the pedestrian ramp area 

in the after condition. These pedestrians did not have 

to weave through the moving right-turning motorized 

vehicles to reach the refuge area where they waited before 

crossing the intersection. Additionally, reducing the corner 

radius with the installation of the treatment decreased the 

speed of the right-turning vehicles. For example, a corner 

being changed from a 60-ft radius to a 25-ft radius is 

predicted to decrease right-turning speed by 2.6 mph. The 

inclusion of truck aprons can facilitate the turning of large 

vehicles while also encouraging smaller radius turns for 

right-turning vehicles.

REFERENCES

Fitzpatrick, K., R. Avelar, M. P. Pratt, S. Das, and D. Lord. 

2022. Crash Modification Factor for Corner Radius, 

Right-Turn Speed, and Prediction of Pedestrian Crashes at 

Signalized Intersections. Report No. FHWA-HRT-21-105. 

Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. https://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/21105/

index.cfm, last accessed December 6, 2022.

FEBRUARY 2023 FHWA-HRT-23-033

HRSO-10/02-23(WEB)E

Recommended citation: Federal Highway Administration, 

Safety Evaluations of Innovative Intersection Designs for Pedestrians 

and Bicyclists (Washington, DC: 2023) https://doi.org/10.21949/1521976

Researchers—This study was conducted by Principal Investigator Kay Fitzpatrick (ORCID: 0000-0002-1863-5106) 

along with Maryam Shirinzad (ORCid Number: 0000-0002-2061-2771) of Texas A&M Transportation 

Institute and Jeff Whitacre (ORCid Number: 0000-0003-1789-7507) of Kimley Horn under contract 

DTFH6116D00039L/693JJ319F000377/P00002.

Distribution—This TechBrief is being distributed according to a standard distribution. Direct distribution is being 

made to the FHWA division offices and Resource Center.

Availability—This TechBrief may be obtained at https://highways.dot.gov/research.

Key Words—Innovative intersection designs, protected intersections, corner islands, bicyclists, pedestrians, 

corner radius, right-turn speed.

Notice—This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) 

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 TechBrief only because they are considered essential to the objective of 

the document.

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.