Tools for selecting and implementing countermeasures 

for improving pedestrian crossing safety

STEP STUDIO
2

INSTRUCTIONS

STEP Studio is a comprehensive compilation of resources, 

design guidance, research, and best practices for 

practitioners to identify appropriate countermeasures for 

improved pedestrian safety. To navigate to its resources, 

click the desired step (e.g. Inventory, Systemic Analysis, 

Countermeasures) on the visual table of contents on the

Step Studio Home page.

To return to the homepage at any time, 

click STEP Studio Home button at the top of each sheet. 

DISCLAIMER

STEP Studio’s contents are subject to advances in safety 

and behavioral research and updates to standards 

and relevant guidance documents. Consult with the 

FHWA Office of Safety for the most current notices that 

may affect recommendations. STEP Studio does not 

describe pedestrian crossing requirements per the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), although ADA 

requirements should be addressed as part of any 

pedestrian crossing improvement project. STEP Studio 

is a resource through the FHWA’s Every Day Counts 

Round 5 (EDC-5) Safe Transportation for Every 

Pedestrian (STEP) Initiative.

STEP Studio Home
3

1 COLLECT DATA AND ENGAGE THE PUBLIC

Collect 

pedestrian crash 

and safety data

Review existing 

highway safety 

plans

Initiate a 

pedestrian safety 

action plan

Pedestrian safety 

policy analysis

Request and 

receive 

public input

Conduct a 

walkability audit

2 INVENTORY CONDITIONS AND PRIORITIZE LOCATIONS

Inventory roadway 

characteristics 

and pedestrian 

crossings

Conduct crash 

cluster analysis

Conduct systemic 

analysis

3 ANALYZE CRASH TYPES AND SAFETY ISSUES

Create crash 

diagrams

Identify crash 

factors Conduct an RSA

4 SELECT COUNTERMEASURES

Review Table 1 

(roadway 

features)

Review Table 2 

(safety issues)

Review Table 3

(implementation 

& operations 

considerations)

5 CONSULT DESIGN AND INSTALLATION RESOURCES

MUTCD 

Guidance

AASHTO & State 

Guidance

Local and Other 

Guidance

6 IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES AND MONITOR OUTCOMES

Identify 

implementation 

opportunities

Consider funding 

options

Construct 

improvements

Monitor results of 

implementation

STEP Studio Home: Selection Process

Click a topic to learn more

STEP Studio Home
4

STEP 1 

Collect Data and 

Engage the Public

This section of the Studio describes methods for capturing and understanding 

existing pedestrian safety trends and engaging stakeholders.

Studio Sections

Pedestrian 

Crash Data 

Collection

Review Existing 

Highway Safety 

Plans

Initiate a 

Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan

Pedestrian 

Safety Policy 

Analysis

Request and 

Receive Public 

Input

Conduct a 

Walkability Audit

STEP Studio Home STEP 1
5

Data Collection 

Considerations

▸ Train law enforcement in uniform 

crash report documentation

▸ Record and share crash data in 

database that allows crash 

mapping and data sharing

▸ Consider inclusion of public-facing 

online crash database

▸ Consider incorporating public 

health information and hospital 

data to account for unreported 

incidents

Additional Resources

NHTSA, Crash Data Improvement 

Program Guide

Collect Pedestrian Crash 

and Safety Data

One of the foundational steps to improving pedestrian safety is understanding 

where and when pedestrian crashes are occurring. Doing so requires 

collecting and maintaining pedestrian crash data. Crash reports completed 

by law enforcement agencies may include information about driver and 

pedestrian actions, as well as environmental conditions when and where the 

crash occurred. 

 

11

FINAL CRASH 

DATABASE 12

SAFETYNET

Figure: Example Crash Process Flow Diagram from 

NHTSA “Crash Data Improvement Program Guide”

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Collect Data
6

Additional Resources

Strategic Highway Safety 

Plan Database

Highway Safety Improvement 

Program Reports

State Highway Safety Plans

Example – Washington 

State 2019 SHSP

Review Existing Highway 

Safety Plans

Existing safety plans are a valuable resource in understanding statewide 

trends in pedestrian crashes, the extent of the problem, and how it is being 

addressed through planned infrastructure projects, education campaigns, or 

law enforcement activities. When addressing pedestrian safety, an agency 

should review the three primary Federal safety plans described below to 

understand its respective State’s efforts in addressing pedestrian safety, the 

data used in analyses, and identifying the diverse stakeholders involved—

which can lead to partnerships.

Key Highway Safety Plans

Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

Statewide-coordinated safety plan updated every 

five years and provides a comprehensive data-driven 

framework for reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. Pedestrian safety is included in the emphasis 

areas of 39 of 52 SHSPs. 

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) The HSIP 

is the collection of projects, activities, plans, and reports to 

reduce fatalities and serious injuries on public roads.

Highway Safety Plan (HSP) A State document, 

coordinated with its Strategic Highway Safety Plan, that the State 

submits each fiscal year as its application for highway safety grants, 

which describes the strategies, projects, and resources necessary to 

achieve its highway safety performance targets.

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Users.

Source: Washington State Strategic 

Highway Safety Plan 2019

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Review Existing HSP
7

Additional Resources

FHWA Guide “How to Develop a 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

Action Plan”

Example - New Jersey Pedestrian 

Safety Action Plan

Example - Virginia Department of 

Transportation Pedestrian Safety 

Action Plan

Example - San Antonio-Bexar 

County Pedestrian Safety Action 

Plan

Case Study - Broward MPO Plans 

for Pedestrian Safety

Initiate a Pedestrian 

Safety Action Plan (PSAP)

A PSAP is a step-by-step action plan to address pedestrian safety within a 

geographic area such as a state, MPO, county, or city. The plan starts by setting 

goals, collecting data, and working with community stakeholders to identify 

pedestrian safety issues. Once goals, data, and issues have been determined, 

problem sites are evaluated to inform policy, design, or infrastructure 

recommendations. 

Critical Steps

▸ Establish Goals and Objectives to Improve Pedestrian Safety

▸ Analyze Pedestrian Safety Data

▸ Gather Stakeholder Input through Organized Collection Channels

▸ Identify Pedestrian Improvements

▸ Implement and Evaluate Safety Programs

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Initiate a PSAP
8

Additional Resources

FHWA Guide – “Transportation 

Safety Planning and the 

Zero Deaths Vision: A Guide 

for Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations and Local 

Communities”

FHWA

FHWA - Safety Culture and 

the Zero Deaths Vision

Example - Massachusetts 

Department of Transportation 

Complete Streets Program

Example - Florida Department of 

Transportation Complete Streets 

Program

Pedestrian Safety 

Policy Analysis

Agencies may have policies or guidance that support incorporating 

pedestrian projects in other projects or eliminating traffic-related deaths, 

such as Complete Streets or Vision Zero/Toward Zero Deaths policies, 

respectively. A Complete Streets 

policy explains how sidewalks and 

crossing treatments are integrated into 

routine street maintenance activities 

and large-scale highway projects. 

Vision Zero and Towards Zero Deaths 

initiatives focus on eliminating or 

significantly reducing traffic fatalities 

and prioritize strategies for the most 

vulnerable roadway users, such as 

pedestrians. Agencies should review 

their policies for metrics that establish 

the need for safety at uncontrolled 

crossing locations and opportunities 

to better integrate pedestrian 

crossing improvements.

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Safety Policy Analysis
9

Additional Resources

FHWA Guide, “Public Involvement 

Techniques for Transportation 

Decision-making”

Case Study – City of Austin Texas 

Online PHB Request Portal

Case Study – Publicly Supported 

Road Diet Reduces Speeds in 

Alexandria

FHWA - Virtual Public Engagement

Request and Receive 

Public Input

Public input is an essential component of transportation safety improvements. 

Agencies should set up a process for receiving, tracking, and responding to 

input from residents and visitors. Many local governments respond with traffic 

calming request applications or online forms for residents with concerns about 

pedestrian safety on high-speed arterials or collector streets. Agencies may 

also consider forming a committee or work group devoted to considering 

pedestrian safety and mobility, such as a pedestrian advisory committee. 

Considerations for Gathering Public Input

▸ Avoid complex terminology

▸ Create a public outreach plan 

that works with existing safety 

champions, communicates safety 

benefits, and dispels myths

▸ Encourage community 

driven requests

▸ Consider demonstration projects

City of Austin Signal Request Dashboard

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Request Public Input
10

Additional Resources

Pedestrian and Bicycle Information 

Center (PBIC) Walkability Checklist

Case Study - Broward MPO Plans 

for Pedestrian Safety

Conduct a Walkability Audit

A Walkability Audit is an informal method for engaging stakeholders 

and raising awareness about pedestrian safety. Community leaders and 

neighbors can conduct a walkability audit at priority locations or corridors 

to identify deficiencies in the pedestrian network at a small area or 

neighborhood scale. Leaders can organize an event and ask participants 

to follow a simple checklist to assess neighborhood streets. The audit’s 

questions should include questions on driver behavior, ease of walking, 

quality of the sidewalk, and safety. 

Core Walkability Audit Steps

1. Identify the area or corridor (street, neighborhood, etc.)

2. Compare the checklist prompts with area under evaluation

3. Add up audit points

4. Consider area improvements

STEP Studio Home STEP 1 Conduct a Walkability Audit
Additional Resources

Case Study - Data Drives 

Pedestrian Safety Projects in 

Oregon

STEP 2

Inventory Conditions 

and Prioritize Locations

This Studio section describes the options for how an agency can 

document field conditions (such as roadway characteristics) and 

screen the transportation network for high-crash and high-risk locations. 

An agency can perform any or all of these analyses.

11

Studio Sections

Inventory Roadway 

Characteristics and 

Pedestrian Crossings

Conduct a Crash 

Cluster Analysis

Conduct a 

Systemic Analysis

STEP Studio Home STEP 2
12

Additional Resources

Case Study - Uncontrolled 

Crossing Inventory Assists 

Pedestrian Safety in Los 

Angeles

Case Study – Rhode Island DOT 

Inventories Crossing Locations 

to Guide Safety Improvements

Case Study - Pedestrian Facility 

Inventory Prepares for Future 

Planning in Lexington

STEP Field Guide for Selecting 

Countermeasures at 

Uncontrolled Pedestrian 

Crossing Locations

MIRE FHWA Roadway Safety 

Program, Model Inventory of 

Roadway Elements (MIRE)

Inventory Roadway 

Characteristics and 

Pedestrian Crossings

The process of collecting roadway characteristics includes compiling 

geospatial data to create base maps for each of the priority sites. Roadway 

conditions are key criteria for selecting countermeasures. The agency may 

document and map the following roadway characteristics for priority sites. 

The agency can also document pedestrian crossing conditions. Agency staff 

can visit the sites and record the following crossing site features. Finally, it is 

important that the agency categorize each crossing as either controlled or 

uncontrolled.

Potential inventory characteristics

▸ Roadway characteristics (i.e. speed, number of lanes, turn lanes 

or median, width, turn lanes, AADT, intersections, signalization)

▸ Parking

▸ Signage

▸ Lighting

▸ Pedestrian crossings (i.e. controlled, uncontrolled) 

▸ Land use and transit access

STEP Studio Home STEP 2 Inventory
Additional Resources

FHWA Guidebook on 

Identification of High 

Pedestrian Crash Locations

Conduct a Crash 

Cluster Analysis

Crash cluster (also known as spot safety) analysis is a reactive approach that 

maps the concentrations of individual crash locations over a time period, 

preferably at least 5 years for pedestrian crash data. Mapping these crashes 

on a geographic information system (GIS) helps to visually reveal clusters, or 

“hot spots,” of pedestrian crashes. The process for conducting crash cluster 

analysis follows four key steps: gather data; plan the analysis; conduct the 

analysis; and prioritize locations. For example, the analysis may focus on 

severity of crashes rather than crash frequency.

Crash cluster analysis steps

▸ Gather data 

▸ Plan the analysis 

▸ Conduct the analysis

▸ Prioritize locations

SPOTLIGHT GDOT Deploys Hot Spot Crash Software to Improve Pedestrian Safety

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) developed a statewide Pedestrian Safety Action Plan in 2018 to reverse the trend of increasing pedestrian 

fatalities. A key component of the plan was the identification of focus corridors—areas with high levels of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries—followed 

by collaboration with regional and local governments to prioritize selection and implement safety improvements. GDOT deployed a software service, called 

NumetricTM, to analyze pedestrian crash data and assist in ranking the most dangerous pedestrian corridors. The software tool allows GDOT to assess seven 

years of crash data and quickly view factors such as crash location, lighting, roadway conditions, crash grouping, and the crash report itself. This analysis 

helps GDOT evaluate crash clusters and provides valuable insight to inform decisions about next phase of review and type of safety countermeasures that 

might be applied at each location. 

After GDOT identifies the high crash locations, it may select it for a pedestrian focused Road Safety Assessment (RSA). Once the RSA is completed, GDOT 

tracks the RSA recommendations and implementation stakeholders in a database, Goasis. This allows GDOT to track the percent of RSA recommendations 

completed as a performance measure and helps GDOT to easily review past RSAs and work with local and regional agencies to determine where they 

might need additional help with implementation.

Crash cluster analysis map: Richmond, VA.

Source: Virginia Department 

of Transportation (2017). 

13

STEP Studio Home STEP 2 Crash Cluster Analysis
14

Prominent Risk Factors

▸ High vehicle volumes

▸ Wide roads (pedestrian 

crossing distance) 

▸ Multiple lanes

▸ Sidewalk or crosswalk presence

▸ Higher speed traffic

▸ Dark or sparsely-lit roads 

or crossings

▸ Adjacent land uses

▸ Type of intersection control

Additional Resources

NCHRP Report 893

Case Study – VDOT Deploys 

Systemic Analysis to Improve 

Pedestrian Safety

Case Study – Robust Pedestrian 

Safety Analysis in Seattle

Conduct a Systemic Analysis

Systemic analysis is a 7-step approach to evaluating a network for pedestrian 

safety improvements that is widely implemented and based on high-risk 

roadway features that are correlated with particular crash types, 

rather than crash frequency. It is a proactive, risk-based, and data driven 

process. The systemic approach may be used in combination with the hot 

spot or cluster analysis. Research has identified risk factors, some of 

which are identified below.

 

 

Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis Process

STEP Studio Home STEP 2 Conduct a Systemic Analysis
STEP 3

Analyze Crash Types 

and Safety Issues

This Studio section describes methods for summarizing pedestrian crash types 

and observed traffic safety issues. This information is important for selecting 

countermeasures.

15

Studio Sections

Create crash 

diagrams

Identify crash 

factors

Conduct a 

Pedestrian Road 

Safety Assessment 

(RSA)

STEP Studio Home STEP 3
16

Create Crash Diagrams

Typing and diagramming pedestrian crashes provides valuable information 

to transportation professionals trying to identify crash patterns and safety 

countermeasures. This process should strike a balance between providing 

enough information and analyzing potentially large amounts of data.

Crash Mapping and Diagramming

▸ Determine appropriate level detail - The method used for mapping 

pedestrian crashes depends on the intended level of detail. A smaller data 

set can be visualized with specific details: exact location, direction the 

vehicle and pedestrian were traveling, and contributing circumstances. A 

larger data set might depict fewer details in order to clearly communicate 

information.

▸ Map or diagram pedestrian crashes - Consider ways to symbolize or label 

crashes that will clearly and effectively convey crash type and/or other 

desired information. Online mapping provides several advantages, including 

allowing viewers to see additional information through pop-up windows.

Additional Resources

PedBikeData – National 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

Data Clearinghouse

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash 

Analysis Tool (PBCAT)

Pedestrian Crash Types

PEDSAFE- Pedestrian Safety 

Guide and Countermeasure 

Selection System

SafeTREC

STEP Studio Home STEP 3 Create Crash Diagrams
17

Identify Crash Factors

The identification and categorization of pedestrian crash factors can 

help agencies address safety issues through countermeasures or other 

modifications. Factors can include vehicle speed, pedestrian behavior, 

pedestrian crossing distance, vehicle yielding and regulation compliance, 

transit stops, alcohol, built environment, and more.

Additional Resources

NCRHP Report 500 -A Guide for 

Reducing Collisions Involving 

Pedestrians 

STEP Studio Home STEP 3 Identify Crash Factors
18

Conduct a Pedestrian 

Road Safety Assessment

A Pedestrian Road Safety Assessment (RSA) is a formal review 

of a roadway by an independent multidisciplinary team 

that is focused on pedestrian safety. RSAs enhance safety 

by identifying potential safety issues affecting road users 

under all conditions. The final RSA report can also identify 

locations for further exploration, consideration of STEP 

countermeasures, and create a more complete picture of 

design considerations that may impact countermeasures 

selection. 

The FHWA’s RSA process follows eight steps (seen right) from 

identification of the study area through implementation. The 

RSA process focuses on data collection, analysis, field work, 

and collaboration that builds trust and reaches broadly 

acceptable recommendations. 

Key data inputs

▸ 3 to 10 years of pedestrian crash data

▸ Vehicle volumes and traffic speeds

▸ Roadway characteristics

▸ Transportation, development, and related plans

▸ Locations of pedestrian generators and attractors

Additional Resources

FHWA Pedestrian 

RSA Case Studies

FHWA Guide - Pedestrian Road 

Safety Audit Guidelines and 

Prompts List

STEP Studio Home STEP 3 Conduct Safety Assessment
STEP 4 

Countermeasure Selection

Instructions

Resources for both selecting countermeasures and learning more about the countermeasures are 

below. Click through each item to access recommendations, 

case studies, and links to additional information.

Tools for selecting countermeasures

Table 1 

Roadway Features

Table 2 

Safety Features 

NEW Table 3

Implementation & Operations 

Considerations 

Countermeasure information

19

Pedestrian Refuge Island

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

Road Diet

Leading Pedestrian Interval

Additional Signalized Intersection 

Pedestrian Safety Improvements

Marked Crosswalk

Crosswalk Lighting

In-street Pedestrian Signage

Advance Yield and Stop Markings

Curb Extensions & 

Parking Restriction

Raised Crosswalk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STEP Studio Home STEP 4
Table 1 Roadway Features

20

Roadway Configuration

Posted Speed Limit and AADT

Vehicle AADT <9,000 Vehicle AADT 9,000–15,000 Vehicle AADT >15,000

≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph ≤30 mph 35 mph ≥40 mph

2 lanes

(1 lane in each direction)

  2

4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6

7 9   7     7 9 

3 lanes with raised median

(1 lane in each direction)

  2 3  

4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5

7 9   7     

3 lanes w/o raised median 

(1 lane in each direction with a 

two-way left-turn lane)

  2 3  

4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6

7 9 7 9 7 9    

4+ lanes with raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

 

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

7 8 9 7 8 9 8 7 8 9        

4+ lanes w/o raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

 

5 6 5 5   5 5   

7 8 9 7 8 9 8 7 8 9        

Given the set of conditions in a cell, 

  Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked

uncontrolled crossing location.

Signifies that the countermeasure should always be 

considered, but not mandated or required, based upon 

engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled 

crossing location.

Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should always occur in conjunction 

with other identified countermeasures.*

The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure is generally not an 

appropriate treatment, but exceptions may be considered following engineering 

judgment.

 1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on crosswalk approach, 

adequate nighttime lighting levels, and crossing warning signs 

 2 Raised crosswalk

 3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line 

_4_ In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign

 5 Curb extension

 6 Pedestrian refuge island

 7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)*

 8 Road Diet

 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)*

*It should be noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both installed at the same crossing location.

This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended 

guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. (revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. 

http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/; Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. 

Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: 

Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Table 1
Table 2 Safety Features

21

Safety Issue Addressed

Pedestrian Crash Countermeasure 

for Uncontrolled Crossings

Conflicts at crossing 

locations Excessive vehicle speed Inadequate conspicuity/ visibility

Drivers not yielding to 

pedestrians in crosswalks

Insufficient separation 

from traffic

Crosswalk visibility enhancement     

High-visibility crosswalk markings*   

Parking restriction on crosswalk approach*   

Improved nighttime lighting*  

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) 

Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line*    

In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign*    

Curb extension*    

Raised crosswalk    

Pedestrian refuge island    

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon    

Road Diet    

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon    

*These countermeasures make up the STEP countermeasure “crosswalk visibility enhancements.” Multiple countermeasures may be 

implemented at a location as part of crosswalk visibility enhancements.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Table 2
High Visibility 

Crosswalk MarkingIn-Street SignAdvance Yield or Stop Sign and MarkingParking Restrictions on Crosswalk ApproachCurb ExtensionImpr

o

ved Nighttime 

LightingRaised CrosswalkPedestrian Refuge IslandRectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)Road DietPedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)Other Pedestrian Signal Options

Primary Safety Issues Addressed

Reduce crashes at crossing locations

CRF: 

48% 

(Peds)

UNK

CRF: 

25% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

30% 

(Peds)

UNK

CRF: 

23% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

45% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

32% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

47% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

19-47% 

(all 

crashes)

CRF: 

55% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

13% 

(Peds)

CRF: 

25% 

(Peds - Ped 

Countdown 

Signal)

Reduces vehicle speeds    

Improves conspicuity/visibility         

Improves separation from traffic   

Installation Priorities

Higher Pedestrian Volumes     

Public Response / Education    

Midblock (non-intersection) Location          

Intersection Location       

Multi-Lane Crossings     

Operations & Maintenance Considerations 

Transit / Emergency Vehicles    

Snow Removal   

Drainage   

Traffic & Bicycle Operations     

Push Button Maintenance   

MUTCD Reference 3B.18 

2C.50 2B.12 3B.16 2B.11

2B.46

3B.19 

3B.23

3B.25

3B.10 

3B.23 

3B.18

2C.50 

7B.08 

IA-21

Figure 4F-1 

Figure 4F-2 

Part 4F

4E.06

Table 3 Implementation & Operations Considerations

22

Click the check marks 

to learn more

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Table 3
23

Marked Crosswalk

The marked crosswalk is the foundational countermeasure for uncontrolled 

crossing locations and is utilized in combination with the other proven safety 

countermeasures. Marked midblock crosswalks serve to legally establish 

pedestrian crossings outside of intersection locations, according to the 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). There are four primary 

considerations for determining the location of a marked crosswalk. These 

considerations are intended to assist agencies and practitioners at placing 

crosswalks at optimal locations for pedestrian activity, safety, operations, and 

visibility.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 48 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes for high 

visibility materials.

Cost: $2,540 each

Specific Considerations

▸ Analyze the Network

▸ Stopping Sight Distance

▸ Crosswalk Spacing

▸ Markings and Patterns

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video – Visibility 

Improvements

Literature Review - An Overview 

and Recommendations of HighVisibility Crosswalk Marking Styles

STEP Guide

FAQs

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Marked Crosswalk
24

Marked Crosswalk — 

Analyze Network

Pedestrians are sensitive to the 

environmental context of the road they 

are attempting to cross and regularly 

weigh the trade-offs between crossing a 

roadway more safely at an intersection or 

by crossing at the most direct point. The 

greater the distance between crosswalks, 

the greater the risks pedestrians tend to be 

willing to take to get to their destination. 

The MUTCD guidance for pedestrian 

walking speed is 3.5 feet per second. The 

image to the right compares the distance 

traveled and walking time between 

crossing at intersections and at a midblock 

location in an example scenario.

Specific Considerations

▸ Pedestrians crossing at intersections 

are exposed to conflicts with turning 

vehicles

▸ Evaluate distances between legal 

crossing opportunities, between 

marked crosswalks, and signalized 

crossings

▸ Look for complementary land uses 

like schools and parks, parking 

lot and retail shopping, tourist 

attractions in a central business 

district (CBD), and transit stop and 

pedestrian destinations.

Additional Resources

FHWA Guide - Guidebook for 

Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Performance Measures

STEP Tech Sheet

FHWA Guide - Achieving 

Multimodal Networks: 

Applying Design Flexibility 

and Reducing Conflicts

FHWA Guide - Small Town and 

Rural Multimodal Networks

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Analyze Network Marked Crosswalk
25

Marked Crosswalk — 

Stopping Sight Distance

Crossings should only be placed in locations where approaching 

vehicles have adequate time to yield to the pedestrian. Stopping sight 

distance (SSD) is a consideration used in highway design to provide 

sufficient available sight distance along the road for a driver to stop 

before reaching a person in the crosswalk. 

SSD is the sum of two distances: 

(1) the distance traversed by the 

vehicle from the instant the driver 

sights an object necessitating a 

stop and applies the brakes, and 

(2) the distance needed to stop the 

vehicle after the brakes are applied. 

As seen in the figure to the right, as 

travel speed increases, so does the 

necessary stopping distance. 

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

AASHTO Policy on Geometric 

Design of Highways and Streets 

(7th Ed.)

STEP Guide

Stopping Sight Distance for Level Roadways, 

AASHTO Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Marked Crosswalk Stopping Sight Distance
26

Marked Crosswalk — 

Crosswalk Spacing

The agency should consider roadway speeds, turning movements, and queue 

lengths when determining an appropriate location for a midblock crosswalk. 

By collecting current traffic counts as part of a crosswalk study, the agency can 

evaluate if roadway elements, such as the presence or length of a turn lane, 

can be changed to accommodate a midblock crosswalk. State guidance 

ranges from 200 feet to 600 feet (table below). 

State Agency Min. Distance to Intersection Note

Utah DOT 600’ —

Arizona DOT 400’ From nearest intersection 

California DOT 300’ From a controlled intersection 

North Carolina DOT 300’ From next crossing opportunity 

Florida DOT 300’ —

Oregon DOT 250-550’ Target spacing for Urban Mix context

Michigan DOT 200’ Distance for urban conditions

If the midblock crossing and existing signalized intersection are too close, 

vehicle queues may extend across the crosswalk, or motorists may not 

anticipate stopping for the crossing. Additional consideration should be made 

for frequent midblock crosswalks near key destinations such as schools. The 

ultimate distance from a signalized intersection—given the roadway elements 

noted above—is context dependent.

SPOTLIGHT Portland 

Pedestrian Plan 2019 

Crossing Spacing 

Guidelines

Portland, Oregon’s 2019 Pedestrian Master 

Plan created new crossing spacing guidelines 

to address the City’s significant pedestrian 

network gaps. An assessment of City’s 

pedestrian crashes found that approximately 

50 percent of all pedestrian crashes from 

2006 through 2015 occurred at mid-block 

or unsignalized intersections, as well as 

63 percent of all fatal and serious injury 

crashes. The new crossing spacing guidelines 

and accompanying recommended 

countermeasures were intended to increase 

pedestrian visibility, improve driver yielding 

rates, and decrease crashes.

When the City assessed its pedestrian network 

against the new crossing guidelines, it found 

it would need over 3,000 new crossings. 

The City intends to incorporate the crossing 

spacing guidelines as part of new capital 

projects and the existing Pedestrian Network 

Completion Program. The Oregon Department 

of Transportation has integrated an adapted 

version of the Portland spacing guidelines into 

its “ODOT Blueprint for Urban Design.” 

Transit

Stops:

Desired distance 

from transit stop

100 feet

Walkways Outside of 

Pedestrian Districts:

Desired Crossing 

Frequency

800 feet

Walkways Inside of 

Pedestrian Districts:

Desired Crossing 

Frequency

530 feet

Graphic excerpt 

from Portland 

Pedestrian Plan

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Marked Crosswalk Crosswalk Spacing
27

Marked Crosswalk — 

Markings and Patterns

High visibility crosswalk materials and patterns are commonly used at 

midblock crosswalks. Continental and ladder are considered high visibility 

crosswalk marking patterns, as these crosswalk patterns are visible from farther 

away compared to a transverse crosswalk for both the driver and pedestrian 

(figure to the right). Research has shown that for existing midblock locations, 

continental markings are detected at about twice the distance upstream 

as the transverse markings during daytime conditions, or about 8 seconds 

of increased awareness of the crossing at 30 MPH (Crosswalk Marking 

Field Study, 2010).

High visibility markings increase motorist detection of a crosswalk. Agencies 

should also use materials such as inlay tape or thermoplastic tape, instead of 

paint or brick, for highly reflective crosswalk markings.

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Literature Review - An Overview 

and Recommendations 

of High-Visibility Crosswalk Marking 

Styles 

FHWA Report - Crosswalk Marking 

Field Visibility Study

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Marked Crosswalk Markings and Patterns
28

Marked Crosswalk FAQs

Q: Is there a MUTCD pedestrian volume warrant to mark a 

crosswalk?

A: There is no warrant or pedestrian volume requirement to mark a crosswalk. 

Section 3B.18 of the 2009 MUTCD says “Crosswalk lines should not be used 

indiscriminately. An engineering study should be performed before they 

are installed at locations away from a traffic control signal or an approach 

controlled by a STOP or YIELD sign.” The MUTCD goes on to reference the 

2005 Zegeer study, “Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at 

Uncontrolled Locations”. This study recommended that priority for marking 

crosswalks be placed at locations with 20 or more pedestrians per peak hour 

(or 15 or more elderly and/or child pedestrians per peak hour). This threshold 

has been misconstrued as a minimum requirement for marking crosswalks.

Q: Does research support the removal of midblock crosswalks?

A: Midblock crosswalks should not be removed without a plan for improving 

safety. Simply removing an existing midblock crosswalk without assessing the 

pedestrian safety needs at a location can be problematic. The Zegeer study 

identified conditions where a crosswalk alone is not sufficient to reduce risk 

for pedestrian crashes. However, it did not recommend removing existing 

crosswalks without a plan for improving crossing safety, such as through the 

addition of countermeasures.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Marked Crosswalk FAQs
29

Crosswalk Lighting

Consideration should be given to placing lights in advance of midblock 

and intersection crosswalks on both approaches to illuminate the front of the 

pedestrian and avoid creating a silhouette.

Installation and design guidelines

▸ Overhead lights placed in advance of uncontrolled crossings on 

both approaches illuminate the front of the pedestrian and avoid 

creating a silhouette.

▸ Consider placing the light fixtures 10 to 15 feet in advance of the 

crosswalk on both sides of the street.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 23 percent reduction 

in total injury crashes

Dimensions: Dependent on 

application

Cost: Varies based on fixture type 

and utility service agreement

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video - 

Visibility Improvements

FHWA report – “Informational 

Report on Lighting Design for 

Midblock Crosswalks”

STEP Guide

FAQ

FHWA FHWA - Roadway 

Lighting Resources

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Crosswalk Lighting
Crosswalk Lighting FAQs

Q: What is “smart lighting”, and how does it differ from 

traditional lighting?

A: Smart lighting refers to lighting that makes use of detectors placed along 

a corridor which are sensitive to movement by pedestrians who approach 

a roadway, which activates the overhead lighting. When no pedestrian 

movement is detected along the corridor, the overhead lights turn off 

automatically. 

Q: What is the preferred quality of pedestrian-focused lighting?

A: Overhead LED lighting with a temperature of 4700○ kelvin has been 

observed as the most similar to the moon and may be preferred for 

illuminating pedestrians. (Source: City of Seattle).

30

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Crosswalk Lighting FAQs
31

In-Street Pedestrian Signage

These signs serve to remind road users of laws regarding right-of-way, 

and they may be appropriate on 2-lane or 3-lane roads where speed 

limits are 30 mph or less. The sign can be placed in between travel lanes 

or in a median. The R1-6 is intended for states where motorists must yield 

to pedestrians when in the crosswalk, and the R1-6a is for states where 

motorists must stop for pedestrians.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: Unknown CMF at 

this time. However, in-street signage 

has been observed with increased 

vehicle yielding rates (near 75 

percent) and decreased vehicle 

speeds

Dimensions: Approximately 36” x 12”

Cost: $240 per sign

Specific Considerations

Addressing Low Yielding Rates 

with Low-Cost Signage 

Case Study, Michigan

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video - 

Visibility Enhancements

STEP Guide

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 In-Street Ped Signage
32

Advance Yield and 

Stop Markings

The stop bar or yield markings (sometimes referred to as “sharks teeth”) are 

placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to indicate where 

vehicles are required to stop or yield in compliance with the accompanying 

“STOP Here for Pedestrians” or “YIELD Here to Pedestrians” sign. 

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 25 percent reduction 

of pedestrian crashes. 

Dimensions: The MUTCD recommended 

minimum base width of 12” with a 

height of 18” and a maximum width 

of 24” and height of 36” for Yield 

markings (MUTCD Part 3 Figure 3B-16)

Cost: $300 ea. (sign)/ $320 ea. (line) 

Specific Considerations

Stop Here for Pedestrians signs 

should only be used where the law specifically requires that a driver must stop 

for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. Otherwise, Yield Here for Pedestrians signs 

should be used with yield line 

pavement markings. 

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video

STEP Guide

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Yield & Stop Markings
33

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: The CMF safety 

effects of curb extensions are 

unknown at this time, but they are often 

combined with other countermeasures 

like refuge islands that have proven 

safety effects. Parking restriction on 

the crosswalk approach can reduce 

pedestrian crashes by 30 percent.

Dimensions: Highly variable by context

Cost: $13,000 average cost (each) for 

curb extensions. Parking restriction cost 

varies by required signs and pavement 

markings.

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video

NCHRP Report 498 - “Application of 

Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for 

Streets and Highways”

STEP Guide

FAQs

Curb Extension and 

Parking Restriction 

A curb extension, also referred to as bulb-outs, extends the sidewalk or 

curb line out into the parking lane, which reduces the effective street 

width. Curb extensions must not extend into travel lanes and should not 

extend across bicycle lanes.

Parking restriction can include the removal of parking space markings, 

installation of new “parking prohibition” pavement markings or curb paint, 

and signs. The minimum setback is 20 feet in advance of the crosswalk 

where speeds are 25 mph or less, and 30 feet where speeds are between 

26 and 35 mph.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Curb Extension & Parking Restriction
34

Curb Extension and 

Parking Restriction FAQs

Q: What are the known safety effects of curb extensions?

A: The crash reduction factor of curb extensions is unknown at this time. Curb extensions 

are often combined with other countermeasures such as pedestrian refuge islands, parking 

restrictions, and advance stop markings that do have proven safety effects. Some safety 

studies have indicated that curb extensions may reduce pedestrian crossing delay, and 

improve vehicle yielding in the far lane in multilane roads.

Q: How is a parking restriction designated?

A: Parking restriction sign and marking requirements vary by state. Consult the 

MUTCD for signs (Section 2B.46) and markings (Sections 3B.19 and 3B.23) that 

designate parking spaces and restrictions. 

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Curb Extension & Parking Restriction FAQs
Raised Crosswalk

Raised crosswalks are ramped speed tables spanning the entire width of the 

roadway, often placed at midblock crossing locations. The crosswalk is 

demarcated with paint and/or special paving materials. These crosswalks act 

as traffic-calming measures that allow the pedestrian to cross at grade with 

the sidewalk. 

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 45 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes and 30 percent 

reduction in vehicle crashes. 

Dimensions: Typically 10’ wide

Cost: $8,170 each (average)

Specific Considerations

Pedestrian Supportive Land Uses 

Case Study, Harrisburg, PA

Emergency Response 

Best Practices

Winter Maintenance 

Best Practices

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video

STEP Guide

FHWA Guide - Traffic Calming 

ePrimer - Module 3

35

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Raised Crosswalk
36

Pedestrian Refuge Island

A pedestrian refuge island is a median with a refuge area that is intended 

to help protect pedestrians who are crossing a multilane road. This 

countermeasure is sometimes referred to as a crossing island, refuge island, or 

pedestrian island. The presence of a pedestrian refuge island at a midblock 

location or intersection allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at 

a time as they cross, and gives them a place to wait for an adequate gap in 

oncoming traffic before finishing the second phase of a crossing.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 32 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes

Dimensions: Minimum 4’ wide, 

though preferable 8’ wide. 

Cost: $13,520 (average). Costs will 

be higher for concrete islands versus 

asphalt islands.

Specific Considerations

Including Medians in 

Multilane Design 

Case Study, Florida

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video

STEP Guide

FAQs

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Refuge Island
37

Pedestrian Refuge Island FAQs

Q: Can you use a pedestrian refuge island with a 4 lane undivided 

roadway? If so, how?

A: To include a pedestrian refuge island within a four lane undivided roadway, 

the agency would need to consider options for reconfiguring the roadway to 

allocate space for the refuge island. This could be a road diet, roadway widening, 

or narrowing the travel lanes at the location of the median island. 

Q: What are some of the safety enhancements 

which are commonly used with a refuge island?

A: Other countermeasures that are often included with a 

pedestrian refuge island include: high visibility marked crosswalk, 

curb extensions, detectable warnings, in-street signage 

(R1-6 or R1-6A), post mounted warning signs (W-11-2, W16-7P), and 

pedestrian-focused lighting in advance of each approach.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Refuge Island FAQs
38

Rectangular Rapid Flashing 

Beacons (RRFB)

RRFBs are pedestrian-actuated conspicuity enhancements used in 

combination with a pedestrian, school, or trail crossing warning sign to 

improve safety at uncontrolled, marked crosswalks. The device includes two 

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

source, that flash with high frequency when activated.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 47 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes. Research 

indicates RRFBs can result in 

increased motorist yielding rates. 

Dimensions: Each RRFB consists 

of two rectangular-shaped 

yellow indications, each with an 

LED-array-based light source

Cost: $22,250 (average)

Specific Considerations

Identifying Roadways for RRFBs 

Case Study, Arlington, VA

Integrating RRFBs into HSIP 

Planning Case Study, ME

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

FHWA Interim Approval 21 (IA-21)

Educational Video

FAQs

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 RRFB
39

RRFB FAQs

Q: When would an RRFB generally be preferable to a pedestrian hybrid beacon 

at a designated pedestrian crossing?

A: RRFBs tend to be substantially less expensive than pedestrian hybrid beacons, so some agencies prefer installing RRFBs 

primarily for cost reasons. Other agencies may have begun using RRFBs as a supplemental traffic control device, and may 

not want to also introduce another device (like a PHB) in the same city, for fear of confusing drivers and pedestrians. Cities 

which use either RRFBs or pedestrian hybrid beacons (and particularly if both types of devices are used in the same city) 

should be sure to provide adequate public information and police enforcement. There is evidence that on high-speed, 

high-volume arterial streets, pedestrian hybrid beacons may be more appropriate than RRFBs in many instances.

Q: Can RRFB’s be used without having a push-button activation, for example, 

using passive detection?

A: It is technically possible to activate an RRFB through passive detection, although most RRFBs make use of 

push-button activation. If there is passive detection, signage should clearly indicate to pedestrians when they are 

to enter the roadway (i.e., only after the device begins to flash and all vehicles have stopped). Agencies should also 

consider the installation of Audible Pedestrian Signals for both RRFBs and PHBs to address the needs of pedestrians with 

vision impairments. 

Q: How is an RRFB situated when there is median?

A: The RRFB is post mounted on the right-hand side of the roadway and the left-hand side of the roadway; if the roadway 

is divided, the left-hand side assembly should be installed on the median, if practical.

Q: Are RRFB’s suitable for use at trail crossings, and if so, under what conditions is 

this desirable?

A: RRFBs may be suitable for marked trail crossings at 2-lane road crossings and at multilane roads, particularly with 

AADTs above 9,000 and speeds of 35 MPH or greater. Consult Table 1, “Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures 

by roadway feature,” for more information.

Q: Is the standard flashing beacon a suitable substitution for a RRFB? If no, then why not?

A: Flashing beacons are not a substitute for RRFBs. RRFBs are proven to reduce pedestrian crashes by 47 percent. 

Consult the MUTCD for information on flashing beacons and IA-21 for RRFBs.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 RRFB FAQs
40

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB, also referred to as a HAWK) head consists 

of two red lenses above a single yellow lens. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB 

rests in dark until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton or other form of 

detection. When activated, the beacon displays a sequence of flashing and 

solid lights that indicate the pedestrian walk interval and when it is safe for 

drivers to proceed.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 55 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes.

Dimensions: Dependent on 

installation context. The beacon 

heads and signage are supported 

by mounts along the roadway or 

mast arms above the roadway.

Cost: $57,680 (average)

Specific Considerations

User and Motorist Education 

Case Study, Tampa, FL

Responding and Prioritizing to 

Resident Requests 

Case Study, Austin, TX

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Analysis of Current PHB Installation 

Policies (Illinois Center for 

Transportation)

Educational Video

STEP Guide

FAQs 

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 PHB
41

PHB FAQs

Q: What are the warrants or guidelines for installing a PHB? For the MUTCD chart, should it make use of a count 

during the pedestrian peak hour or vehicle peak hour, or both?

A: There is no warrant for PHBs, and the language in the MUTCD is guidance that should be considered alongside 

engineering judgment.

Q: In timing a PHB, should there be an immediate response, or should the timing be part of the signal progression 

of the corridor? 

A: A PHB can be coordinated within the signal system, but this can also create a long delay for pedestrians and may 

encourage crossing prior to the PHB’s activation. The PHB may also be coordinated with signals during peak travel times 

and use an immediate response during off-peak travel times.

Q: When would a PHB be considered to be preferable to a standard traffic signal with pedestrian WALK/DON’T 

WALK signals?

A: The MUTCD states that a “pedestrian hybrid beacon may be considered for installation to facilitate pedestrian 

crossings at a location that does not meet traffic signal warrants (see Chapter 4C), or at a location that meets traffic 

signal warrants under Sections 4C.05 and/or 4C.06 but a decision is made to not install a traffic control signal.” A PHB can 

also create less vehicular delay since it allows vehicles to move once the crosswalk is clear of pedestrians, while a traffic 

signal holds vehicles until the pedestrian phase ends and the clearance interval timing is completed.

Q: MUTCD Section 4F.02 states, “The pedestrian hybrid beacon should be installed at least 100 feet from side streets 

or driveways that are controlled by STOP or YIELD signs.” Is it ever acceptable to install a PHB at or closer than 100 

feet in this scenario?

A: In the current MUTCD, Item A of Paragraph 4 in Section 4F.02 is a Guidance statement; therefore, if there is a good 

engineering reason to deviate from this guidance (see Item B in Paragraph 1 of Section 1A.13), the agency is permitted 

to do so. According to a review of state PHB practices, 43 states maintain a 100’ offset from side streets or driveways 

with STOP or YIELD signs, 6 states have no offset requirement, and one state maintains a 100’ offset from side streets or 

driveways and at least 300 feet from traffic signals or railroad grade crossings with active warning devices.

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 PHB FAQs
42

Road Diet

A Road Diet is a roadway reconfiguration resulting in a reduction in the 

number of travel lanes, which is usually achieved by converting a four-lane 

undivided road to three lanes. The space gained by eliminating lanes is 

typically used for other uses and travel modes.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 19 percent reduction 

in total crashes (urban areas) to 47 

percent reduction in total crashes 

(suburban areas).

Dimensions: Dependent on planned 

roadway reconfiguration.

Cost: $25,000 to $100,000 per 

mile, dependent on roadway 

improvements.

Specific Considerations

Integrating with Complete Streets 

Case Study, Alexandria, VA

Public Response and Education 

Case Study, Ramsey County, MN

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

FHWA Road Diet 

Informational Guide

Educational Video

4-to-3-Lane Conversion Video 

(Iowa DOT)

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Road Diet
43

Leading Pedestrian Interval

Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) are low-cost adjustments to signal timing to 

increase pedestrian safety at signalized intersections. An LPI gives pedestrians 

a typical 3- to 7-second head start before vehicles in the parallel direction 

are given the green signal indication. LPIs can help reduce conflicts between 

pedestrians and left- or right- turning vehicles. The LPI works to position the 

pedestrian within the crosswalk thereby decreasing the likelihood of a 

conflict or crash with a left- or right-turning vehicle ahead of the turning traffic.

Countermeasure Details

Safety Benefit: 13 percent reduction 

in pedestrian crashes.

Dimensions: The LPI should be at 

least 3 seconds and be timed to 

allow pedestrians to cross at least 

one lane of traffic or, in the case of 

a large corner radius, to travel far 

enough for pedestrians to establish 

their position before the turning traffic 

is released.

Cost: $200 (controller setting 

changes only) to $1,200 each 

(pedestrian/vehicle study, retiming 

analyses, incorporating the formers 

setting changes).

Specific Considerations

Addressing Vehicle Intersection 

Delay - Case Study, Austin, TX

Additional Resources

STEP Tech Sheet

Educational Video

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Leading Pedestrian Interval
44

Additional Signalized 

Intersection Pedestrian 

Safety Improvements

There are many crash countermeasures that can be deployed at signalized 

intersections to increase pedestrian safety. These countermeasures can 

provide information to motorists and pedestrians on the permitted interval 

to walk across the roadway, reduce turning conflicts, increase signal 

accessibility, improve pedestrian conspicuity, and more. The safety 

benefits, costs, and appropriate applications vary for these signalized 

intersection-based improvements.

Potential Intersection Countermeasures

▸ Advanced Stop Lines

▸ Pedestrian Signals

▸ Pedestrian Signal Timing

▸ Right-Turn-on-Red Restrictions

▸ Traffic Signal Enhancements (e.g. Audible Pedestrian Signal, 

countdown timer, pedestrian detector)

▸ Additional Signing (e.g. Yield to Pedestrian, Turn Sign)

Additional Resources

FHWA Website - Intersection Safety 

for Vulnerable Road Users

PEDSAFE

STEP Studio Home STEP 4 Additional Improvements
STEP 5

Consult Design and Installation 

This Studio section identifies additional resources that refine countermeasure 

options for priority sites.

45

Studio Sections

MUTCD Guidance

AASHTO & State 

Guidance

Local and Other 

Guidance

STEP Studio Home STEP 5
46

Additional Resources

Manual on Uniform Traffic 

Control Devices

MUTCD MUTCD Interim Approvals

MUTCD Guidance

The MUTCD defines the standards used by road managers nationwide to 

install and maintain traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, 

bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. Agencies may focus on 

three parts of the MUTCD shown below for additional considerations when 

installing countermeasures. Interim Approvals are those that authorize certain 

uses while a rulemaking is pending.

Countermeasure MUTCD Reference

Marked Crosswalk Crosswalk Markings (3B.18)

Non-Vehicular Warning Signs (2C.50)

Advance Yield/

Stop Lines & Signs

Stop/Yield Lines (3B.16)

Stop/Yield for Pedestrians Signs (2B.11)

In-Street Pedestrian Signage In-Street Sign (2B.12)

Parking Restriction Signage (2B.46)

Markings (3B.19 & 3B.23)

Raised Crosswalk Speed Hump Markings (3B.25)

Pedestrian Refuge Island

Approach Markings and Obstructions (3B.10)

Crosswalk Markings (3B.18)

Curb Markings (3B.23)

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

Speeds ≤ 35MPH (Figure 4F-1)

Speeds > 35MPH (Figure 4F-2)

Design and Operation (Part 4F)

Rectangular Rapid 

Flashing Beacon 

Non-Vehicular Warning Signs (2C.50)

School Sign (7B.08)

Dimensions, Placement, and Flashing 

Conditions (Interim Approval 21)

Leading Pedestrian Interval Interval and Signal Phases (4E.06)

STEP Studio Home STEP 5 MUTCD Guidance
47

Additional Resources

AASHTO Guide for the 

Planning, Design, and 

Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 

1st Edition (2004)

AASHTO Policy on 

Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 

7th Edition (2018)

Case Study - Maryland DOT 

Context Guide Illustrates 

STEP Countermeasures Across 

Land Uses

New Mexico State DOT 

Design Manual

AASHTO & State Guidance

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) provides recommendations for the planning, design, and operation 

of accommodations for pedestrians on public rights-of-way. Two of these 

documents, the Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian 

Facilities (1st Edition), and the Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets (7th Edition, commonly referred to as the Green Book), describe the 

relationship of land use and site design to roadway and pedestrian features. 

They are available for purchase from the organization’s website. 

States reference AASHTO guidance or create state specific materials to direct 

the design of pedestrian crossing treatments. For example, the New Mexico 

Department of Transportation revised its Design Manual to incorporate 

consideration of the STEP countermeasures during project planning.

STEP Studio Home STEP 5 AASHTO & State Guidance
Additional Resources

PEDSAFE

FHWA STEP Guide for 

Improving Pedestrian Safety 

at Uncontrolled Crossing 

Locations

Local and Other Guidance

A local agency can review and, if needed, enhance local guidance for traffic 

engineers and roadway designers to follow when installing countermeasures. 

The agency’s roadway design manual can include details, such as design and 

installation guidance, for each of the countermeasure options. The agency 

may also consider creating additional warrant and threshold guidance for 

countermeasures such as the Road Diet, considering local conditions.

SPOTLIGHT Arizona DOT Tailors STEP Guidance for Local Agencies

In 2017, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) formed a STEP Team to advance implementation of the STEP countermeasures. The team included 

representatives from ADOT, FHWA, the City of Phoenix, City of Tempe, and City of Tucson. The STEP team used the Arizona Statewide Pedestrian Safety Action 

Plan (2017) to focus on identified corridors and sites for focused improvements. The team also recognized the different challenges that rural and urban 

areas face with implementing the STEP countermeasures. 

The ADOT STEP Team then developed a website devoted to helping local agencies respond to pedestrian safety challenges. The STEP website included 

an interactive countermeasure selection tool based on the STEP Guide. The website’s interactive tool also provides links to Arizona-specific installation 

examples, countermeasure illustrations, local case studies, and references to State laws and MUTCD guidance for the design of the treatments. 

48

Webpage screenshot from Arizona Department of Transportation.

STEP Studio Home STEP 5 Local & Other Guidance
STEP 6

Identify Opportunities 

and Monitor 

This Studio section describes possible options for funding and implementation 

of the countermeasures described in the Studio and the Guide.

49

Studio Sections

Identify 

Implementation 

Opportunities

Consider Funding 

Options

Construct 

Improvements

Monitor Results of 

Implementation

STEP Studio Home STEP 6
50

Additional Resources

NCHRP Report 803: Pedestrian 

and Bicycle Transportation Along 

Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority 

Tool Guidebook (2015)

FHWA - Road Diet: Systemically 

Identifying Candidate Road Diet 

Locations

Case Study - Ohio DOT Designs 

Pedestrian Safety Program to 

Fast-Track Project Construction

FHWA - Strategies for Accelerating 

Multimodal Project Delivery

Case Study - Broward MPO Plans 

for Pedestrian Safety

Identify Implementation 

Opportunities

Agencies can look beyond safety-focused funding programs to help 

implement countermeasures. By incorporating safety treatments into 

planned improvements or projects, the agency can realize cost savings. The 

agency can also engage the community prior to programing or designing 

the project to identify opportunities for improved pedestrian crossing safety 

and build support for the project.

Implementation Opportunities

▸ Roadway resurfacing

▸ Roadway maintenance

▸ State Transportation Improvement Projects

▸ Operational improvements

▸ Public or private land or site development

▸ Highway Safety Improvement Program

STEP Studio Home STEP 6 Implementation Opportunities
51

Additional Resources

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Funding Opportunities Summary

HSIP

Federal Highway Improvement 

Program (HSIP)

FHWA Federal-aid Program 

Administration

Consider Funding Options

A major consideration when selecting a safety project or program is 

identifying and securing the funding to design, construct, operate, and 

maintain the project or program. Federal agencies distribute funds to the 

states and other jurisdictions for safety projects; some projects require a local 

match to leverage State or Federal funds.

Potential funding steps

▸ Submit high-priority pedestrian crash locations as HSIP projects

▸ Consider other State safety funding programs for low-cost 

pedestrian safety improvements

▸ Address gaps in pedestrian accommodations through other 

State or Federal funding programs

STEP Studio Home STEP 6 Funding Options
52

Additional Resources

Case Study – TNDOT Temporary 

Pedestrian Refuge Island

Construct Improvements

The public may have questions about the improvements as 

construction activities begin. The agency should post information 

about the improvements and a timeline for construction to a public-facing 

website and consider issuing a press release about the project. The agency 

should also provide detailed information about the project to neighbors 

and business owners impacted by construction activities. Pedestrians will 

maintain access through the work zone area by way of temporary walkways, 

curb ramps, and traffic control signage. The agency may also consider 

phasing in the improvements. For example, a refuge island can 

be implemented initially by pavement markings and flexible delineators 

in the center lane. The agency can later add a raised median and 

appropriate landscaping at the refuge island.

STEP Studio Home STEP 6 Construct Improvements
53

Additional Resources

FHWA Guidebook for Developing 

Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Performance Measures (2016)

Case Study - NCDOT PHB 

Evaluation Shows Safety 

Improvement

Monitor Results of 

Implementation

The agency should consider monitoring the impacts of countermeasures 

per defined performance measures. Specific performance measures can be 

outlined in plans, such as a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) described 

in Step 1. In addition to the performance of the treatment, the agency should 

consider assessing the durability and life cycle maintenance needs for inservice devices. As more pedestrian crossing treatments are implemented, 

State and local agencies can use these data to research the effectiveness 

of countermeasures and best practices for installation. Evaluation also helps 

an agency demonstrate the value of the investment in countermeasures to 

community leaders and the public.

Potential performance measures

▸ Public support or public outreach events

▸ Crash rates and severities (minimum 3 years 

after countermeasure installation)

▸ Pedestrian volumes

▸ Traffic speeds

STEP Studio Home STEP 6 Monitor Results
54

References

Summary Table: CRFs and CMFs by countermeasure

Countermeasure CRF CMF Basis Reference

Crosswalk visibility enhancement1 — — — —

Advance STOP/YIELD signs and markings 25% 0.75 Pedestrian crashes2 Zegeer, et. al. 2017

Add overhead lighting 23% 0.77 Total injury crashes Harkey, et. al. 2008

High-visibility marking3 48% 0.52 Pedestrian crashes Chen, et. al., 2012

High-visibility markings (school zone)3 37% 0.63 Pedestrian crashes Feldman, et. al. 2010

Parking restriction on crosswalk approach 30% 0.70 Pedestrian crashes Gan, et. al., 2005

In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign UNK UNK N/A N/A

Curb extension UNK UNK N/A N/A

Raised crosswalk (speed tables)

45% 0.55 Pedestrian crashes

Elvik, et. al., 2004

30% 0.70 Vehicle crashes

Pedestrian refuge island 32% 0.68 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al., 2017

PHB 55% 0.45 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al., 2017

Road Diet – Urban area 19% 0.81 Total crashes Pawlovich, et. al., 2006

Road Diet – Suburban area 47% 0.53 Total crashes Persaud, et. al., 2010

RRFB 47% 0.53 Pedestrian crashes Zegeer, et. al. 2017

1 This category of countermeasure includes treatments which may improve the visibility between the motorist and the crossing pedestrian.

2 Refers to pedestrian street crossing crashes, and does not include pedestrians walking along the road crashes or “unusual” crash types.

3 The effects of high-visibility pavement markings (e.g., ladder, continental crosswalk markings) in the “after” period is compared to pedestrian 

 crashes with parallel line markings in the “before” period.

STEP Studio Home
55

References

1. Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. NCHRP Report 841: 

Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 

2017. 

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

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

3. Chen, L., C. Chen, R. Ewing, C.E. McKnight, R. Srinivasan, and M. Roe. “Safety Countermeasures and Crash 

Reduction in New York City—Experience and Lessons Learned.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012.

4. Feldman, M., J. Manzi, and M. Mitman. “An Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of the Safety Effects of High-Visibility 

School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San Francisco, California.” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 8-14.

5. Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. “Update of Florida Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures to 

Improve the Development of District Safety Improvement Projects.” Final report. Florida Department of 

Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2005.Elvik, R., P. Christensen, and A. Amundsen. “Speed and Road Accidents 

An Evaluation of the Power Model.” Transportokonomisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway, 2004.

6. Pawlovich, M.D., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch. “Iowa’s Experience with Road Diet Measures—Use of 

Bayesian Approach to Assess Impacts on Crash Frequencies and Crash Rates.” Transportation Research 

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1953, Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

D.C., 2006.

7. Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bhim. “Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes approaches for 

before–after road safety evaluations.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 38-43.

8. Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bhim. “Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes approaches for 

before–after road safety evaluations.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, 2010, pp. 38-43.

STEP Studio Home
To learn more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/