Memorandum

Subject: ACTION: Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment Guidance (Due date: 

November 15, 2023) 

Date: October 21, 2022

From: Cheryl J. Walker In Reply Refer To:

Associate Administrator, Office of Safety HSSP

To: Division Administrators 

Purpose

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide background and guidance to clarify the 

requirements for the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(l), 

as amended by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58, also known as 

the “Bipartisan Infrastructure Law” (BIL)). All States are required to develop a Vulnerable Road 

User Safety Assessment as part of their Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) in 

accordance with 23 U.S.C. 148(l). 

This guidance also incorporates principles consistent with the Federal Highway Administration’s 

(FHWA) Policy on Using Bipartisan Infrastructure Law Resources to Build a Better America,

dated December 16, 2021. 

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.
2 

Table of Contents

................................................................................................................................................................ 1 

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

Definitions..................................................................................................................................3 

Background ...............................................................................................................................3 

Prioritizing Vulnerable Road User Safety in All Investments and Projects........................3 

Equity.....................................................................................................................................4 

Climate Change and Sustainability ......................................................................................5 

Guidance....................................................................................................................................6 

Schedule and Frequency........................................................................................................6 

Initial Assessment...............................................................................................................6 

Updates...............................................................................................................................7 

Review ................................................................................................................................7 

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements..............................................................................7 

Using a Data Driven Process..............................................................................................7 

Consultation .................................................................................................................... 10 

Program of Projects or Strategies................................................................................... 11 

Potential Funding Opportunities........................................................................................ 15 

Development..................................................................................................................... 15 

Implementation................................................................................................................ 15 

Relationship to other HSIP and Vulnerable Road User Activities.................................... 17 

SHSP and Related Action Plans...................................................................................... 17 

HSIP Implementation Plan.............................................................................................. 17 

HSIP Annual Report........................................................................................................ 17 

Local Safety Plans............................................................................................................ 17 

Questions................................................................................................................................. 17 

Attachment.............................................................................................................................. 18 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment Template.......................................................... 19
3 

Definitions

The following terms are used throughout this guidance: 

A Safe System Approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of 

injury or fatality to road users; and that: takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of 

human error; accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely crash

types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and 

takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)). 

A Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is an assessment of the safety performance of a 

State with respect to vulnerable road users and the plan of the State to improve the safety of 

vulnerable road users as described under 23 U.S.C. 148(l). (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(16)). 

A vulnerable road user is a nonmotorist with a fatality analysis reporting system (FARS) 

person attribute code for pedestrian, bicyclist, other cyclist, and person on personal conveyance

or an injured person that is, or is equivalent to, a pedestrian or pedalcyclist as defined in the 

ANSI D16.1-2007. (See 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(15) and 23 CFR 490.205). A vulnerable road user may 

include people walking, biking, or rolling. Please note that a vulnerable road user: 

• Includes a highway worker on foot in a work zone, given they are considered a 

pedestrian. 

• Does not include a motorcyclist. 

Background 

Vulnerable road users accounted for a growing share of all United States roadway fatalities in 

recent years.

1 An even larger number of vulnerable road users are injured each year in collisions 

involving motor vehicles.2 On March 2, 2022, the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) released its 2020 annual traffic crash data3 showing that 38,824 lives 

were lost in traffic crashes nationwide that year. That number marks the highest number of 

fatalities since 2007. In addition, as compared with 2019 data, bicyclist fatalities were up 9.2

percent (from 859 to 938) and pedestrian fatalities were up 3.9 percent (from 6,272 to 6,516). 

NHTSA also published early estimates for 2021 roadway fatalities.

4 The total projected 

pedestrian fatalities increased by 13 percent from 2020 to 2021 and bicyclist fatalities increased 

by 5 percent from 2020 to 2021. Addressing the safety of vulnerable road users through a 

multifaceted, collaborative, and comprehensive approach allows people that walk, bike, and roll

full and safe access to our transportation system. 

Prioritizing Vulnerable Road User Safety in All Investments and Projects

The United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) National Roadway Safety Strategy

(NRSS) (issued January 27, 2022) commits the USDOT and FHWA to respond to the current 

1 https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx 2 https://cdan.dot.gov/query

3

 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813266

4 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813298
4 

crisis in traffic fatalities by “taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly reduce 

serious and fatal injuries on the Nation’s roadways,” in pursuit of the goal of achieving zero 

highway deaths. FHWA recognizes that zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our 

Nation’s roads and achieving zero is our safety goal. FHWA therefore encourages States and 

other funding recipients to prioritize vulnerable road user safety in all Federal highway 

investments and in all appropriate projects.

At the core of the NRSS is the adoption of the Safe System Approach, which addresses the safety 

of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It 

involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety 

stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human 

mistakes and lessening impact forces to reduce crash severity and save lives. To achieve the 

vision of zero fatalities and to Build a Better America, vulnerable road user safety should be 

fully considered in a State’s transportation investment decisions, from planning and 

programming, environmental analysis, project design, and construction, to maintenance and 

operations. States should use data-driven safety analyses to ensure that safety is a key input in 

any decision made in the project development process for all project types and fully consider and 

improve the safety of all road users, especially vulnerable road users, in project development.

FHWA encourages States to use the lessons learned from the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment process to also identify policies, rules, and procedures that may be barriers to safe 

travel by vulnerable road users, and take steps to change them. 

Because of the role of speed in fatal crashes, FHWA is also providing new resources on the 

setting of speed limits and on re-engineering roadways to help encourage safer travel speeds 

through design. FHWA recommends that States use 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. 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. 

Equity

Fatalities impact communities differently, particularly for people not in a vehicle. Bicyclist and 

pedestrian fatalities are overrepresented for American Indians, Black or African-Americans, and

Hispanic or Latinos compared to total bicyclist and pedestrian fatalities.5

 Therefore, States 

should ensure that Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessments address equity by considering the 

impacts to these communities. The BIL provides considerable resources to help States and other 

funding recipients advance projects that consider the specific circumstances affecting community 

members’ mobility and safety needs and allocate resources consistently with those needs, 

enabling the transportation network to effectively serve all community members. FHWA will 

work with States to ensure the inclusion of project elements that proactively address racial 

equity, access for elderly people and people with disabilities, workforce development, and 

economic development, and that remove barriers to opportunity and accessibility, including 

5 National Roadway Safety Strategy (transportation.gov)
5 

automobile dependence in both rural and urban communities, and which redress prior inequities 

and barriers to opportunity.

States are responsible for involving the public, including by seeking out and considering the 

needs of those traditionally underserved by existing transportation systems and underrepresented 

populations, in transportation planning and complying with participation and consultation 

requirements in 23 CFR 450.210 and 23 CFR 450.316, as applicable. Underserved communities

means populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that 

have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, 

and civic life. Underserved communities include Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native 

American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and other persons of color; members 

of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; 

persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely 

affected by persistent poverty or inequality.6 

To assist with these public engagement efforts, FHWA expects the State to engage with all 

impacted communities and community leaders to determine which forms of communication are 

most effective.

7 These individuals can provide insight on the unique circumstances impacting 

various disadvantaged and underrepresented groups so that new channels for communication 

may be developed. State can then use this information to inform decisions across all aspects of 

project delivery including planning, project selection, and the design process. This is particularly 

relevant to the high-risk areas identified as part of the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment. 

Climate Change and Sustainability 

The United States is committed to a whole-of-government approach to reducing economy-wide 

net greenhouse gas pollution by 2030. The BIL provides considerable resources—including new 

programs and funding—to help States and other funding recipients advance this goal in the 

transportation sector. In addition, the BIL makes historic investments to improve the resilience of 

transportation infrastructure, helping States and communities prepare for hazards such as 

wildfires, floods, storms, and droughts exacerbated by climate change.

FHWA encourages the advancement of projects that address climate change and sustainability. 

To enable this, recipients should consider climate change and sustainability throughout the 

planning and project development process, including the extent to which projects align with the 

6 Executive Order 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal 

Government, 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 25, 2021) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidentialactions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-thefederal-government/. 7 USDOT has published guidance on promising practices that can help USDOT funding 

recipients meet the requirements of meaningful public involvement and participation. Promising Practices for 

Meaningful Public Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making (October 2022), 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-

10/Promising_Practices_for_Meaningful_Public_Involvement_in_Transportation_Decision_making.pdf. 

7 USDOT has published guidance on promising practices that can help USDOT funding recipients meet the 

requirements of meaningful public involvement and participation. Promising Practices for Meaningful Public 

Involvement in Transportation Decision-Making (October 2022), 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-

10/Promising_Practices_for_Meaningful_Public_Involvement_in_Transportation_Decision_making.pdf. 
6 

President’s greenhouse gas reduction, climate resilience, and environmental justice 

commitments. In particular, FHWA encourages recipients to fund projects that reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging increases in walking, bicycling, and rolling trips, and

that support fiscally responsible land use and transportation efficient design. FHWA also 

encourages recipients to consider projects and strategies in the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment that address environmental justice concerns.

Guidance

The purpose of this guidance is to clarify the requirements for a Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment as described in 23 U.S.C. 148(l). Specifically, for the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment, this guidance addresses: (1) schedule and frequency, (2) statutory and regulatory 

requirements, (3) potential funding opportunities, and (4) the relationship between the 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment and other HSIP and vulnerable road user activities. 

Per 23 U.S.C. 148(l)(7)(B), FHWA consulted with various States and safety stakeholders in the 

development of this guidance. Consultation included listening sessions, outreach at meetings and 

conferences, and a request for information on the implementation of the BIL in the Federal 

Register.

8

 Public comments received in response are available at www.regulations.gov (Docket 

No. FHWA-2021-0021). FHWA considered all relevant feedback received in the development of 

the guidance that is presented below. 

Schedule and Frequency

Initial Assessment

All States are required to complete an initial Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment by 

November 15, 2023 (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(1)) and include it as part of their State Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan (SHSP) (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(13)(G)). 

A State’s initial Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment should be included in its SHSP as an 

appendix. The outcomes from the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment quantitative analysis 

and program of projects or strategies should be incorporated into relevant SHSP emphasis areas, 

strategies, and actions, as appropriate, and implemented through State and local planning 

procedures. 

If the State does not plan to publish its SHSP update until after November 15, 2023, the initial 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment may be included as a separate document (e.g., an 

addendum) from the existing SHSP. If the initial Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is 

included as an addendum, it will still need to be approved by the Governor of the State or a 

responsible State agency official that is delegated by the Governor (23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iv)) and 

posted to the website along with the SHSP (23 U.S.C. 148(h)(3)). 

8 86 FR 68297 (Dec. 1, 2021). 
7 

Updates

Each State must update the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment with subsequent SHSP 

updates. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(5)). States are required to update their SHSP no later than 5 years 

from the previous approved version. (23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(i)). 

FHWA acknowledges that every State is on a different SHSP update cycle. After a State submits 

its initial Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment, if its first subsequent SHSP update is 

published on or before November 15, 2024, the State can confirm that no substantive updates are 

needed because the information from the initial assessment is still current and then incorporate 

the initial 2023 Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment as an appendix in their updated SHSP. 

If the first SHSP update after the completion of the initial Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment is published after November 15, 2024, then FHWA expects the State to update the 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment and include it as part of the SHSP update as an 

appendix. FHWA expects that Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessments will be an iterative 

process, where agencies will learn and develop a more sophisticated approach over time.

Review

The State shall submit the initial Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment to their respective 

FHWA Division Office no later than November 15, 2023, either as part of the SHSP update, or 

as an addendum to an existing SHSP. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(1)). Per 23 CFR 924.9(a)(3)(iii), FHWA 

approves the process for the updated SHSP, which includes the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. Therefore, the FHWA Division Office will review the initial Vulnerable Road User 

Safety Assessment to ensure it meets the applicable requirements and approve the process, 

consistent with SHSP update requirements. The FHWA Division Office may seek input on the 

Vulnerable Road User Safety assessment from the applicable NHTSA and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) Regional offices as part of the review process. In future years, the 

subsequent Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment will be reviewed and approved as part of 

the regular SHSP update process approval. 

Statutory and Regulatory Requirements 

As part of the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment, the State shall use a data-driven process 

to identify areas of high-risk for vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(A)). The State must 

consult with local governments, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and regional 

transportation planning organizations that represent a high-risk area (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(4)(B)) and 

develop a program of projects or strategies to reduce safety risks to vulnerable road users in areas 

identified as high-risk (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(B)). Additional information about each of these 

requirements is provided below. 

A template that outlines the suggested content and structure for the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment is included as an attachment. 

Using a Data Driven Process

A Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment includes an assessment of the safety performance of 

a State with respect to vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(16)). To assess the safety 
8 

performance with respect to vulnerable road users, the State must perform a quantitative analysis 

of vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries that- 

(i) Includes data such as location, roadway functional classification, design speed, speed 

limit, and time of day; 

(ii) considers the demographics of the locations of fatalities and serious injuries, 

including race, ethnicity, income, and age; and

(iii) based on the data, identifies areas as “high-risk” to vulnerable road users. 

(23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(A))

Use of Data

As part of the State’s HSIP, a State shall have in place a safety data system with the ability to 

perform safety problem identification and countermeasure analysis and to differentiate the safety 

data for vulnerable road users from other road users. (See 23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(A)(vi)). The State 

shall use the safety data system, and any other relevant data, to perform the quantitative analysis 

of vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries using, at a minimum, data from the most 

recent 5-year period for which data is available. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(3)). However, States may 

consider more years of data. This may be appropriate, for example, when the 5-year sample size 

is insufficient to distinguish patterns and the facility, adjacent land uses, and traffic volumes have 

not changed significantly during the longer time period. 

The data analysis shall include data such as location, roadway functional classification, design 

speed, speed limit, and time of day. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(A)(i)). Data may also include indicators 

of where vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries are likely to occur, such as volume 

data, land use (generators of walking and bicycling trips, such as major activity centers, shopping 

centers, hotels, schools, residential areas near or adjacent to commercial establishment, 

transit/bus stops, or employers) and infrastructure indicators of people walking and bicycling 

(such as sidewalks, transit stops, transit corridors, worn paths that indicate pedestrians are in the 

area but lack adequate facilities, and bikeways).

States should use the best available data to understand the contributing factors related to 

vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries. FHWA recommends that States give special 

consideration to ensure Tribal areas are included in the data analysis. FHWA also encourages 

States to partner with other agencies to aggregate data sources and supplement existing data 

collection efforts. For example, partnering with the State Department of Public Health, 

Department of Emergency Medical Services, and Medical Examiner may provide additional 

insights on crash outcomes. Local agencies may also have additional data (e.g., travel patterns, 

pedestrian and bicyclist counts, and other data such as near miss events) that States can include 

in the quantitative analysis. Transit agencies may have data on transit ridership and facility 

inventories for pedestrian catchment areas. Transit ridership information is available from FTA’s 

National Transit Database (NTD) Program, which is the Nation’s primary source for information 

and statistics on the transit systems of the United States. States that have data integration 

capabilities will benefit from a more complete understanding of vulnerable road user safety 

issues. 
9 

Consideration of Demographics 

The quantitative analysis of vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries shall also consider 

the demographics of the locations of fatalities and serious injuries, including race, ethnicity, 

income, and age (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(A)(ii)). In addition to demographics of locations, FHWA 

encourages States to also consider the demographics, including disability status, of the people

that are killed and seriously injured in traffic crashes, if possible. There are various sources of 

demographic data, including but not limited to: 

• EJScreen: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool (EPA)

• FHWA - HEPGIS Maps: Socioeconomics and Equity Analysis (FHWA)

• Transportation Disadvantaged Census Tracts (arcgis.com) (USDOT)

• The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEQ)

• Social Vulnerability Index (CDC)

Many agencies take demographics into account by integrating equity factors in safety analysis. 

Examples of agencies that have considered equity in safety can be found in FHWA’s Noteworthy 

Practices Database (search by topic “Equity in Safety”). 

Identification of High-Risk Areas

The HSIP requires States to identify hazardous locations, sections, and elements that constitute a 

danger to vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(c)(2)(B)(i)). In addition, as part of the 

quantitative analysis of vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries, States must identify 

areas as high-risk to vulnerable road users (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(2)(A)(iii)). 

States use various data-driven safety analysis approaches to identify high risk areas for 

vulnerable road users. States can use their own methodology or adapt other approaches to best 

meet their needs. These approaches might include: 

• High Injury Network (HIN) analysis which includes the mapping of corridors where high 

numbers of people have been killed and severely injured in traffic crashes. This methodology 

has been used by Vision Zero cities across the country. A State could also develop an HIN 

modal subset for vulnerable road users. 

• Predictive safety analysis9 which helps identify roadway sites with the greatest potential for 

improvement and quantifies the expected safety performance of different project alternatives. 

Predictive approaches combine crash, roadway inventory, and traffic volume data to provide 

more reliable estimates of an existing or proposed roadway’s expected safety performance.

• Systemic safety analysis10 or risk-based models, which use crash and roadway data in 

combination to identify high-risk roadway features that correlate with particular crash types. 

9 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsdp/ddsa.aspx

10 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/
10 

Systemic analysis identifies locations that are at risk for severe crashes, even if there is not a 

high crash frequency at these locations.

Each State will identify high-risk areas based on the results of their quantitative analysis using 

the required data and demographics information, as well as consideration of the Safe System 

Approach. A high-risk area may be a geographic region (e.g., a county or region covered by an 

MPO), specific facility type (e.g., major arterial), specific location (e.g., a corridor or 

intersection) or other priority area (e.g., work zones and Tribal areas). The FHWA Pedestrian & 

Bicycle Safety Website includes a list of Data Tools and Resources that are available to help the 

State identify high-risk areas for vulnerable road users.

Consultation 

States are required to consult with local governments, MPOs, and regional transportation 

planning organizations that represent a high-risk area. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)(4)(B)). Local 

governments include counties, townships, municipalities, special districts, and other general 

purpose authorities that are under the jurisdiction of local governments. If a high-risk area is 

located within Tribal lands, FHWA recommends that States also engage with Tribal 

Governments. States should also consult with transit agencies if transit stops or stations are 

located within the high-risk area.

For purposes of a Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment, FHWA encourages States to 

“consult” as provided in the planning process. Per the Transportation Planning and Programming 

definitions in 23 CFR 450.104, consultation means that one or more parties confer with other 

identified parties in accordance with an established process and, prior to taking action(s), 

considers the views of the other parties and periodically informs them about action(s) taken. 

The purpose of the consultation requirement for the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is 

to gain local knowledge and perspective on the factors contributing to the safety concerns at the 

high-risk areas and to identify potential projects or strategies to improve the safety of vulnerable 

road users, including their access to transit, in these areas. States may also consult with local 

governments, MPOs, and regional transportation planning organizations regarding local safety 

data that may be available to include the quantitative analysis required to identify high-risk areas. 

These parties may also have insights on policies, rules, and procedures that could be revised to 

better ensure the consistent consideration of the safety needs of vulnerable road users across all 

project types. 

FHWA also encourages States to consult institutional, advocacy, and community groups, 

particularly those that represent populations that may be underrepresented based on the 

demographics of the locations of fatalities and serious injuries. These stakeholders will often 

have first-hand knowledge of challenges and barriers to walking, biking, and rolling in their 

communities, and insights for solutions that might work best to reduce vulnerable road user 

fatalities and serious injuries given their unique community characteristics.

Each State should establish a process to consult with the various entities that represent a highrisk area. States may leverage existing consultation efforts to gather input from the various 

government agencies, planning organizations, and stakeholder groups that represent high-risk 
11 

areas. This may include road safety audits (RSAs) or consultations performed as part of the 

regular transportation planning process.

RSAs are a proactive, formal safety performance examination of an existing roadway or future 

roadway project and its surrounding area. RSAs are performed by a multidisciplinary team 

independent of the project and use an established process. RSAs consider all road users, account 

for human factors and road user capabilities, document findings and recommendations in a 

formal report, and require a formal response from the road owner. RSAs are a tool that can be 

used to consult with government agencies, planning organizations, and other members of the 

community to determine contributing factors and potential solutions to address safety concerns in 

the high-risk areas. 

Consultations involved in existing planning processes may also provide insights into contributing 

factors and potential solutions for high-risk areas identified via the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. The State may have already identified a project or strategy to improve vulnerable 

road user safety in the identified high-risk areas. States should consult existing planning 

documents, such as the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), Public 

Transportation Agency Safety Plan,

11 HSIP Implementation Plan, or local road safety plans, to 

determine if any of the projects in these documents could address the needs identified in the 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment.

Program of Projects or Strategies 

The Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment shall include a program of projects or strategies to 

reduce safety risks to vulnerable road users in areas identified as high-risk. (23 U.S.C. 

148(l)(2)(B)). In developing the program of projects or strategies, the State shall take into 

consideration the input from the consultation described above, as well as the Safe System 

Approach. (23 U.S.C. 148(l)()4)). The State should also consider the Complete Streets Design 

Model, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plans, and other requirements and

expectations as they are developing their program of projects and strategies for the Vulnerable 

Road User Safety Assessment. Each of these considerations is described in more detail below. 

Safe System Approach

Since the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is part of the State’s SHSP, FHWA 

recommends that States consider additional elements in their Safe System Approach beyond 

those specified in 23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9). The FHWA encourages States to view a Safe System 

Approach as – 

• aiming to eliminate death and serious injury for all road users; 

• anticipating and accommodating human errors; 

• keeping crash impact energy on the human body within tolerable levels; 

• proactively identifying safety risks in the system; 

11 https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/safety/public-transportation-agency-safety-program/smallbus-transit#SmallBusApp 
12 

• building in redundancy through layers of protection so if one part of the system fails, the 

other parts provide protection; and 

• sharing responsibility for achieving the vision zero goal of zero deaths and serious injuries 

among all who design, build, manage, and use the system.

Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and 

increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System Approach and 

improve safety for people that walk, bike, and roll. FHWA encourages States to prioritize 

countermeasures and strategies as follows to align with the Safe System Approach: 

1. Separate users in space (e.g., separated bike lanes, walkways, pedestrian refuge islands) 

2. Implement physical features to slow traffic (e.g., self-enforcing roads, road diets) 

3. Separate users in time (e.g., leading pedestrian interval)

4. Increase attentiveness and awareness (e.g., crosswalk visibility enhancements, pedestrian 

hybrid beacons, lighting) 

5. Implement speed enforcing strategies (e.g., speed safety cameras)

It is also important to note that issues may vary by area type (e.g., there may be different issues 

for rural, urban, or suburban areas). States should also consider these potential differences and 

apply appropriate strategies based on context. 

The program of projects or strategies for the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment should 

take into consideration all road users, modes of travel and elements of a Safe System (Safe 

Roads, Safe Speeds, Safe Vehicles, Safe Road Users, and Post-Crash Care). 

Complete Streets

As detailed in FHWA’s recent Report to Congress: “Moving Toward a Complete Streets Design 

Model,”12 FHWA encourages States and communities to adopt and implement Complete Streets 

policies that prioritize the safety of all users in transportation network planning, design, 

construction, and operations. Section 11206(a) of the 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.” A Complete 

Streets 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 

addressing safety issues through implementation of safety countermeasures. Implementation of 

the model includes systematically changing policies, rules, and procedures to consistently 

prioritize safety for all users across all project types. By addressing Safer Streets and Safer 

Speeds, the Complete Streets Design Model serves as an implementation strategy of the Safe 

System Approach. 

12 FHWA, Moving to a Complete Streets Design Model: A Report to Congress on Challenges and Opportunities, 

March 2022. https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-

03/Complete%20Streets%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf
13 

ADA

The ADA of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination 

against people with disabilities and ensure equal opportunity and access for persons with 

disabilities. The USDOT’s Section 504 regulations apply to recipients of the Department’s 

financial assistance. (See 49 CFR 27.3(a)). Title II of the ADA applies to public entities 

regardless of whether they receive Federal financial assistance. (See 28 CFR 35.102(a)). The 

ADA requires that no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity’s 

facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from 

participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public 

entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity. (28 CFR 35.149). A public entity’s 

pedestrian facilities are considered a “service, program, or activity” of the public entity. As a 

result, public entities and recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to ensure the 

accessibility of pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way, such as curb ramps, sidewalks, 

crosswalks, pedestrian signals, and transit stops in accordance with applicable regulations. 

Federal-aid funds are available to improve accessibility and to implement recipients’ ADA 

transition plans and upgrade their facilities to eliminate physical obstacles and provide for 

accessibility for individuals with disabilities. States should consider their ADA transition plans 

as they develop their program of projects or strategies as part of the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. FHWA will provide oversight to State and local agencies to ensure that each public 

agency's project planning, design, and construction programs comply with ADA and Section 504 

accessibility requirements. 

Other Requirements and Expectations 

Transportation System Access

The program of projects may not degrade transportation system access for vulnerable road users 

(23 U.S.C. 148(l)(6)). Safety risks to vulnerable road users should not be mitigated through 

efforts that reduce opportunities for, or the attractiveness of, walking, bicycling, rolling, or 

accessing transit. In addition, per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

Section 6A.0113 “the needs and control of all road users through a [Temporary Traffic Control] 

TTC zone shall be an essential part of highway construction, utility work, maintenance 

operations, and the management of traffic incidents”. Therefore, in carrying out projects States 

should also avoid temporary degradation of service for vulnerable road users during 

construction. Further, 23 U.S.C. 109(m) states that “the Secretary shall not approve any project 

or take any regulatory action under this title that will result in the severance of an existing major 

route or have significant adverse impact on the safety for nonmotorized transportation traffic and 

light motorcycles, unless such project or regulatory action provides for a reasonable alternate 

route or such a route exists.” 

Access to Transit

Vulnerable road user safety issues are likely to arise near transit stations, bus stops, and other 

places where transit (bus or rail) operates. 

13 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part6/part6a.htm 
14 

FHWA, working with FTA, seeks to help Federal-aid recipients plan, develop, and implement 

infrastructure investments that prioritize safety, mobility, and accessibility for all transportation 

network users, including vulnerable road users as well as transit riders, micromobility users, 

freight and delivery services providers, and motorists.14 This includes the incorporation of data 

sharing principles and data management. 

FHWA encourages States to consider transit access as they develop the program of projects or 

strategies for the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment. Regardless of how a person began 

their trip, they walk, bike, or roll to access transit. Transit agencies and roadway owners both 

play critical roles in improving the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. There are a variety of 

actions that transit agencies and roadway owners can implement to improve safety for 

pedestrians and bicyclists when accessing transit. These actions include designing safe pedestrian 

and bicyclist routes to transit facilities, as well as locating and designing transit stops and stations 

to provide safe and accessible facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. These treatments can be 

combined to maximize benefits to vulnerable road users. For instance, a curb extension can 

create a protected bicycle facility, reduce crossing distances, and calm traffic. Likewise, a Bus 

Rapid Transit facility in the center of a roadway can calm traffic, increase transit accessibility, 

create transit service that is faster, more comfortable, and more reliable, and reduce crossing 

distances for people crossing a roadway. 

MPOs, transit agencies, and States should keep planning as a key element to understand where 

change and improvements are needed. Road owners such as State, city, and county governments 

can identify bicycle and pedestrian access to transit needs and potential improvements and 

document them in a plan or other official document, such as the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. This allows the agencies to act quickly when funding opportunities arise, provide 

documented support for improvements, and include these improvements when larger projects are 

implemented.

Projects 

FHWA encourages States to consider use of FHWA’s Proven Safety Countermeasures to address 

high risk areas for vulnerable road users. FHWA also encourages States to include innovative 

projects and strategies to improve the safety of vulnerable road users. Projects or strategies that 

include a new traffic control device or a different application of an existing device may require 

approval from FHWA to experiment with the device or its use. Additional information is 

available on the MUTCD Experimentation webpage.

15

FHWA does not expect States to have a fully developed project for each identified high-risk 

area. The Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is a plan to improve the safety of vulnerable 

road users (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(16)) and must be included in the State SHSP (23 U.S.C. 

148(a)(13)(G)). As such, FHWA recognizes that this is a planning level document and additional 

14 FHWA, Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit, 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/fhwasa21130_PedBike_Access_to_transit.pdf. 

15 https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/condexper.htm 
15 

effort will be necessary to further develop the projects and strategies identified in the Vulnerable 

Road User Safety Assessment as part of the transportation planning process. 

Projects or strategies to improve vulnerable road user safety for the identified high-risk areas will 

vary depending on the type of high-risk area identified. Examples of different projects or 

strategies for the various types of high-risk areas include, but are not limited to: 

• Geographic Region – City or County - Develop Complete Streets Policy or Plan 

• Facility Type – Major Arterial – Install center median island and Rapid Rectangular Flashing 

Beacons or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons at mid-block crossings and ensure speed limits are set 

appropriately. 

• Specific Location – Corridor – Implement RSA Recommendations 

• Specific Location – Intersection – Implement protected intersection features

• Priority Area - Work Zones – Develop work zone safety and mobility policy to address 

vulnerable road users

Potential Funding Opportunities

Development 

The development of the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment may be financed with HSIP or 

State Planning and Research (SP&R) funds, subject to that program's eligibility requirements and 

the cost allocation procedures of 2 CFR part 200. (See 23 CFR 924.9(b)). 

Implementation

Once the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment is complete, it is imperative that agencies 

implement the projects and strategies to realize their expected safety benefits. FHWA expects 

State and local governments to use the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment findings and 

recommendations to adjust project selection criteria and make other changes to guide 

investments to improve the safety of vulnerable road users. 

The projects and strategies from the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment can be 

implemented through a combination of Federal, State, local, and private funding sources. 

These projects may be eligible under the HSIP, either as a highway safety improvement project 

(23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1)) or specified safety project (23 U.S.C. 148(e)(3)). See the HSIP eligibility 

guidance for additional information about specific HSIP eligibility requirements. 

States that are subject to the Vulnerable Road User Safety Special Rule under 23 U.S.C. 

148(g)(3) may also leverage the funds required to be obligated under that special rule to 

implement eligible highway safety improvement projects from the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. See the HSIP Special Rules guidance for additional information about this potential 

funding opportunity. 

Transportation Alternatives Set-Aside funds can be used on activities in furtherance of a 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment. (23 U.S.C. 133(h)(3)(C)). See the Transportation 

Alternatives Set-Aside Implementation Guidance for additional information. In addition, HSIP 
16 

funds may be credited toward the non-Federal share of the costs of a Transportation Alternatives

Set-Aside project if the project is an eligible highway safety improvement project as described in 

23 U.S.C. 148(e)(1) and is consistent with the State strategic highway safety plan. (23 U.S.C. 

133(h)(7)(B)(i)). Using this provision, States can work with local governments to combine HSIP 

funds and funds that are set-aside for transportation alternatives projects to cover 100 percent of 

projects that address bicycle and pedestrian safety on public roads or publicly owned bicycle or 

pedestrian pathways or trails.

FHWA maintains a Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding Opportunities webpage16 that indicates 

potential eligibility for pedestrian and bicycle projects under USDOT surface transportation 

funding programs.

There are also a variety of discretionary grant programs that may provide potential funding 

opportunities for projects and strategies from the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment, such 

as, the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Program, or the Reconnecting Communities Pilot 

Program. Additional information about these and other USDOT grant opportunities is available 

at https://www.transportation.gov/grants. 

Transit Flex 

Federal-aid funds can be “flexed” to FTA to fund transit projects for transit agencies. (23 U.S.C. 

104(f)). A key goal of the use of Federal-aid funding on transit and transit-related projects is to 

provide an equitable and safe transportation network for travelers of all ages and abilities, 

including those from marginalized communities facing historic disinvestment. FHWA 

encourages recipients to consider using funding flexibility for transit or multimodal-related 

projects and to consider strategies that: (1) improve infrastructure for nonmotorized travel, public 

transportation access, and increased public transportation service in underserved communities; 

(2) plan for the safety of all road users, particularly those on arterials, through infrastructure 

improvements and advanced speed management; (3) reduce single-occupancy vehicle travel and 

associated air pollution in communities near high-volume corridors; (4) offer reduced public 

transportation fares as appropriate; (5) target demand-response service towards communities 

with higher concentrations of older adults and those with poor access to essential services; and 

(6) consider equitable and sustainable practices while developing transit-oriented development 

including affordable housing strategies and consideration of environmental justice populations.

Under 23 U.S.C. 104(f) funds eligible for transit projects or transportation planning may be 

transferred (flexed) to the FTA and administered in accordance with chapter 53 of Title 49, 

U.S.C., except that the Federal share requirements of the original fund category continue to apply 

(23 U.S.C. 104(f)(1)). Should a State choose to utilize funds for transit projects, States should 

work with the FHWA Division Office to flex the funds to FTA to be allocated and obligated to 

the desired project. Transit projects that are funded with funds made available under Title 23, 

U.S.C., and are not flexed to FTA, must be administered in accordance with Title 23 and meet all 

applicable FHWA requirements (23 CFR 1.9(a)). 

16 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/funding/
17 

Relationship to other HSIP and Vulnerable Road User Activities 

The HSIP includes several requirements to develop various plans and reports. This section 

describes the relationship between these activities and the Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment. 

SHSP and Related Action Plans 

All States have an SHSP that identifies safety priorities and strategies for the State. Many States’ 

SHSPs include an emphasis area for certain vulnerable road users such as pedestrians, bicyclists, 

or other nonmotorized users. These States may have a separate action plan to support 

implementation of the SHSP strategies for vulnerable road users. States that are an FHWA 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Focus State may also have an existing Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. 

These action plans may serve as the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment if they meet all of 

the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 148(l), as described in this guidance. 

HSIP Implementation Plan 

Some States may be required to develop an HSIP Implementation Plan if they do not meet or 

make significant progress toward meeting their safety performance targets. (23 U.S.C. 148(i)). 

The HSIP Implementation Plan is a look-ahead document and describes how the State will 

achieve safety performance targets and long-term safety outcomes in the future. Specifically, the 

HSIP Implementation Plan includes a summary of the State’s available HSIP funding, programs, 

and anticipated projects for the next fiscal year. All programs, projects, or strategies from the 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment that will be implemented through the HSIP must also 

be included in the HSIP Implementation Plan in the year the State will obligate HSIP funds for 

those projects or strategies. (23 U.S.C. 148(i)(2)(C)). 

HSIP Annual Report 

All States are required to complete an annual HSIP report that describes the progress 

implementing HSIP projects over the past year, as well as the effectiveness of previously 

implemented projects. (23 U.S.C. 148(h)). Any program, project or strategy from the Vulnerable 

Road User Safety Assessment that is implemented through the HSIP must also be reflected in the 

subsequent year’s HSIP annual report. (23 CFR 924.15(a)(1)(ii)(B)). 

Local Safety Plans

Local agencies or communities may have a local safety plan. Local safety plans come in all 

different shapes and sizes and might include, for example, a Local or Tribal Road Safety Plan, a 

Complete Streets Plan, a Pedestrian or Bicycle Master Plan, or a Comprehensive Safety Action 

Plan developed under SS4A. These local safety plans may address safety, facility plans for 

vulnerable road users, or both, and should be considered as part of the consultation required for 

areas identified as high risk for vulnerable road users under 23 U.S.C. 148(l)(4)(B). 

Alternatively, if the high-risk area does not already have any such local safety plan, that may be 

a strategy to consider as part of the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment. 

Questions

If you have any questions or need additional information about Vulnerable Road User Safety 

Assessment or other HSIP requirements, please contact Tamara Redmon 
18 

(tamara.redmon@dot.gov or 202-366-4077) or Karen Scurry (karen.scurry@dot.gov or 202-897-

7168).

Attachment

• Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment Template 
19 

Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment Template 

FHWA encourages each State to use the Vulnerable Road User Safety Assessment Template 

provided below to ensure all requirements are met and provide all information necessary for 

FHWA to approve the process as part of the FHWA SHSP process approval. States can also

provide additional information to reflect vulnerable road user safety needs and solutions as well. 

Overview of Vulnerable Road User Safety Performance 

• Present historical trends for vulnerable road user fatalities and serious injuries over the 

past five years (or longer). 

• Disaggregate trends by user type 

• Compare vulnerable road user safety performance to overall safety performance 

• Describe progress towards meeting or making significant progress toward meeting safety 

performance targets for nonmotorized users. 

Summary of Quantitative Analysis

• Describe data, methodology and time-period of analysis used to identify high-risk areas 

to vulnerable road users

• Describe how demographics were considered as part of the quantitative analysis 

• Provide a list of the high-risk areas to vulnerable road users identified based on the data 

and demographics information

Summary of Consultation 

• Describe the process used to consult with required entities and other stakeholders about 

high-risk areas 

• Provide a summary of the outcomes (i.e., safety concerns and potential solutions) of the 

consultation for each high-risk area

Program of Projects or Strategies

• Identify the program of projects and strategies to reduce the safety risks for vulnerable 

road users in the high-risk areas. States may consider developing an online interactive 

map identifying high-risk areas and proposed projects or strategies to address them. 

Safe System Approach 

• Describe how the Safe System Approach was considered as part of the Vulnerable Road 

User Safety Assessment. Note: This could be a separate section of the Assessment or 

integrated throughout as appropriate.