SEPTEMBER 2020

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST 

ROAD SAFETY AUDIT (RSA) GUIDE 

AND PROMPT LIST
i 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Technical Documentation Page 

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-20-042

2. Government Accession

No.

3. Recipient's Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists

5. Report Date

September 2020

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s)

Elissa Goughnour, Matt Albee, Libby Thomas, Dan Gelinne, and Joe Seymour

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

VHB University of North Carolina 

940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 Highway Safety Research Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27606 Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599

10. Work Unit No.

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-16-D-00005

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period

Final Report, June 2018 – June 2019

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

FHWA

15. Supplementary Notes

The Contracting Officer’s Task Manager (COTM) was Tamara Redmon (FHWA Office of Safety).

This guide is an update of the Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists

(http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/PedRSA.reduced.pdf) developed in 2007 and the Bicycle Road Safety Audit

Guidelines and Prompt Lists (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa12018/) developed in 2012.

16. Abstract

This guide is intended to support agencies that are interested in conducting pedestrian- and bicycle-focused RSAs and

includes information on safety risks for both modes, the RSA process, necessary data, and the roles and responsibilities of

the RSA Team. Also included are updated prompt lists for pedestrians and bicyclists to use in the field. This guide will aid

practitioners understand pedestrian and bicyclist issues in their jurisdiction and potentially achieve other goals in addition

to safety, like enhancing quality of life, improving community health, or increasing pedestrian and bicycle mode share.

17. Key Words:

road safety audit, road safety assessment, RSA,

pedestrian, bicycle, safety, multimodal, prompt

lists, Vision Zero, Safe System, micromobility

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this

page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

73

22. Price

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

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 
iii

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Table of Contents

Introduction............................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Trends.......................................................................................................................................... 3

Location Types..................................................................................................................................................................................4

Separation of Road Users ............................................................................................................................................................ 5

Visibility and Conspicuity ............................................................................................................................................................. 7

Transit Interactions ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7

Bus.................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8

Bus Rapid Transit........................................................................................................................................................................ 8

Light Rail Transit......................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Commuter Rail.............................................................................................................................................................................9

Risks for Crashes.............................................................................................................................................................................. 9

Risks for Severity........................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Principles of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety...................................................................................................................... 11

Principles of Pedestrian Safety........................................................................................................................................... 11

Principles of Bicyclist Safety................................................................................................................................................ 15

RSA Overview and Process ............................................................................................................................................................ 19

When Should RSAs be Considered? ..................................................................................................................................... 20

Pedestrian- and Bicyclist-Focused RSA Process............................................................................................................... 20

Step 1 – Identify Project or Existing Road for RSA..................................................................................................... 21

Step 2 – Select Independent and Multidisciplinary RSA Team............................................................................. 21

Step 3 – Convene RSA Team Meeting............................................................................................................................ 22

Step 4 - Perform Field Reviews.......................................................................................................................................... 22

Step 5 - Analyze and Report on Findings...................................................................................................................... 24

Step 6 – Present RSA Findings to Project Owner....................................................................................................... 25

Step 7 - Prepare Formal Response................................................................................................................................... 25

Step 8 - Incorporate Findings............................................................................................................................................. 25

Data Sources .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Crash Data.................................................................................................................................................................................. 25

Roadway and Traffic Data.................................................................................................................................................... 26

Observational Data................................................................................................................................................................. 26
iv

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Land Use and Trip Generation Data ................................................................................................................................ 27

Relevant Plans and Policies ................................................................................................................................................. 27

Analysis Methodologies ............................................................................................................................................................ 28

Hot Spot and Crash Diagramming................................................................................................................................... 28

Systemic Analysis .................................................................................................................................................................... 28

Network Connectivity............................................................................................................................................................ 29

Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Project Owner................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

RSA Host.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 31

RSA Facilitator/Team Leader.................................................................................................................................................... 31

RSA Team ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 31

Logistics............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

RSA Team Packets................................................................................................................................................................... 33

Field Visit Locations................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Meals ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 33

Vehicles ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 33

General Field Review Considerations ................................................................................................................................... 33

Innovative and Advanced Technologies and Resources .............................................................................................. 34

Definitions ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 41

Appendix A: Sample Materials ..................................................................................................................................................... 47

Sample Agendas........................................................................................................................................................................... 47

Sample Crash Diagram............................................................................................................................................................... 49

Sample Field Packet .................................................................................................................................................................... 51

RSA Report Outline...................................................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix B: Prompt List................................................................................................................................................................. 53

Appendix C: Resources.................................................................................................................................................................... 59

Planning and Performance Measurement Resources.................................................................................................... 59

Resources for Diagnosing Safety Problems....................................................................................................................... 60

Countermeasure and Design Resources ............................................................................................................................. 60

Behavioral Resources .................................................................................................................................................................. 61

Policy Resources ........................................................................................................................................................................... 62

References............................................................................................................................................................................................ 63
v 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Graphic. Fatalities over the past 10-years in the U.S........................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Graphic. Analysis of pedestrian fatalities by location from 2014-2016. ...................................................... 5

Figure 3. Graphic. Analysis of bicycle fatalities by location from 2014-2016. .............................................................. 5

Figure 4. Graphic. Motorist overtaking crash type.................................................................................................................. 6

Figure 5. Graphic. Motorist and bicycle turning conflict at an intersection.................................................................. 6

Figure 6. Graphic. Motorist and bicycle crossing path conflict at an intersection. .................................................... 6

Figure 7. Photo. Bus approaching a bus stop by crossing a bicycle lane. ..................................................................... 8

Figure 8. Graphic. Relationship between vehicle speeds, pedestrian injury outcomes, and cone of vision. 10

Figure 9. Photo. Pedestrians walking in the grass due to sidewalk discontinuity. .................................................. 12

Figure 10. Graphic. Minimum space for two wheelchairs passing, person with crutches, and vertical 

clearance. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 13

Figure 11. Graphic. ADA standards and PROWAG requirements for accessible routes........................................ 13

Figure 12. Graphic. ADA Standards for ramps. ...................................................................................................................... 14

Figure 13. Graphic. ADA Standards for change in direction............................................................................................. 14

Figure 14. Photo. Pedestrian waiting to cross a road without sidewalks or a marked crossing........................ 15

Figure 15. Graphic. Bicyclist operating space......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 16. Graphic. Variation in bicycle dimensions............................................................................................................ 17

Figure 17. Graphic. Eight-step RSA process............................................................................................................................ 20

Figure 18. Photo. RSA Team conducting site observations.............................................................................................. 23

Figure 19. Graphic. Strava bicycle and pedestrian heatmap data for Boise, Idaho................................................. 35

Figure 20. Photograph. Camera-mounted vehicle............................................................................................................... 35

Figure 21. Photograph. Google earth footage. ..................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 22. Photograph. Example of video footage monitoring crosswalk use. ........................................................ 36

Figure 23. Photograph. Additional video footage showing transit access................................................................. 37

Figure 24. Photograph. Sample drone footage from the Albuquerque RSA. ........................................................... 38

Figure 25. Photograph. Sample drone footage from the Albuquerque RSA. ........................................................... 39

Figure 26. Graphic. Illustration of various bicycle and pedestrian facilities and accommodations (not to 

scale)....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 27. Graphic. Collision diagram. ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 28. Graphic. Collision diagram with pedestrian crash details. ........................................................................... 50

List of Tables 

Table 1. Prioritization matrix. ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
vi 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

List of Acronyms 

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

B/C benefit/cost

BRT bus rapid transit

CMF crash modification factor

CRF crash reduction factor

DOT Department of Transportation

EMS Emergency Medical Services

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

LRT light rail transit

LTAP/TTAP Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NACTO National Association of City Transportation Officials

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PBCAT Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Analysis Tool

PBIC Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center

PHB pedestrian hybrid beacon

PROWAG Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines

RRFB rectangular rapid-flashing beacon

RSA road safety audit

SLM shared lane marking, or “sharrow”
vii

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

 

Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government 

assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document.

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks 

or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered 

essential to the objective of this document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible 

for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not 

necessarily reflect the official policy of the U.S. Department of Transportation. 

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

Images in the report are intended to serve as examples of the range of real-world 

existing conditions; they are not limited to best practices or approved designs or 

behaviors and, in some cases, may reflect conditions that are not recommended.

Publication Number: FHWA-SA-20-042 

 
1 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Introduction 

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are a proactive, formal safety performance examination of an existing roadway 

or future roadway project and its surrounding area. An independent and multi-disciplinary team conducts 

the assessment with the intent of improving safety—and may be focused particularly on pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety. The RSA Team considers how roadway, traffic, environmental, and human factors impact 

safety, within the context of mobility, access, surrounding land use, and aesthetics. 

While transportation professionals have collectively made progress in improving roadway safety, there are 

still stark differences in safety for particular modes. Notably, increases in pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities 

have outpaced those of other modes, increasing by 51 percent in the 10-year period between 2009 and 

2018. During that same time period, total traffic fatalities increased by 8 percent.

(1) In 2018 (the most 

recent year for which complete data is available), the National Highway Transportation Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) reported that while there was a 2.4 percent reduction in overall fatalities from the 

previous year, fatalities among pedestrians and bicyclists increased by 3.4 percent and 6.3 percent, 

respectively. Not only can walking and biking be an enjoyable way to travel, it can also help individuals 

and agencies reach environmental, physical, and mental health goals. With the increases in walking and 

bicycling throughout the U.S., it is imperative that transportation professionals support those modes by 

improving safety. As such, RSAs can be a useful tool for enhancing the operating environment and 

improving safety for these non-motorized modes. 

In 2008, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety recognized RSAs as a Proven 

Countermeasure in reducing serious injuries and fatalities. FHWA encourages widespread implementation 

of RSAs by State, Tribal, and local transportation agencies.(2) FHWA’s Road Safety Audits: An Evaluation of 

RSA Programs and Projects showed a significant reduction in crashes after implementing five RSAs in the 

study. Total crash reductions ranged from 10 to 50 percent. For most RSA projects, benefit/cost (B/C) 

ratios—which compare the benefits derived from crash reduction to the cost of conducting the RSA and 

implementing the countermeasures—were calculated as an additional measure of the project’s success. 

All of the evaluated RSA projects had a B/C ratio greater than 1.0, meaning the project benefits 

outweighed the project costs.(3)

This guide serves as an update to the Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (2007) and 

Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists (2012). However, as pedestrian- and bicycle-focused 

RSAs are oftentimes conducted simultaneously, this new guide provides the content in one concise 

document. 

 

While this guide is written to address both pedestrians and bicyclist safety, it is important to remember 

that walking and bicycling are distinct transportation modes with unique safety concerns. Bicyclists travel 

at higher speeds compared to pedestrians and may use the roadway like a motorized vehicle (with or 

without shared bicycle markings) and/or have facilities dedicated for their use adjacent to motorized 

vehicle travel lanes, (e.g., bicycle lanes, bike boxes). Pedestrians, conversely, travel at lower speeds, on 

facilities that are separate from vehicular travel lanes (e.g., sidewalks, shared use paths), and usually enter 

the travel lane only when crossing the street. However, when pedestrian facilities are absent, like in many 

residential or rural locations, pedestrians may be forced to use the travel lane or shoulder. 
2 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Walking, biking, taking transit, and driving each play a role in how individuals travel daily. It is important 

This guide is intended to support agencies that are interested in conducting pedestrian- and bicyclefocused RSAs and includes information on safety risks for both modes, the RSA process, necessary data, 

and the roles and responsibilities of the RSA Team. Included in the Appendices are sample materials, 

prompt lists to use in the field, and additional resources. Agency staff can use this guide to understand 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues in their jurisdiction and achieve other goals in addition to safety, like 

enhancing quality of life, improving community health, or increasing pedestrian and bicycle mode share. 

Linking RSAs with Zero Deaths Based Initiatives and the 

Safe System Approach

RSAs can be used in alignment with various initiatives or goals, such as Vision Zero, Toward Zero 

Deaths, or the Safe Systems Approach. These initiatives all recognize that roadway users misjudge 

risks or make mistakes, and it is necessary to design a transportation system that reduces the 

number and severity of consequences resulting from these actions. Towards Zero Deaths and 

Vision Zero approaches state that roadway deaths are unacceptable, and many State and local 

agencies have adopted plans and policies to reach zero deaths. Both approaches typically combine 

a systemic and site-specific approach to identify locations for improvement. RSAs are a perfect tool 

for identifying those site-specific safety needs. 

The Safe Systems Approach requires analysts, designers, and transportation leaders to understand 

the interaction among five key elements: 

• Road users.

• Roadways and roadsides.

• Vehicles.

• Speed.

• Incident management.

This approach embraces the philosophy that if one part of the system fails, the other parts should 

still protect transportation system users. The RSA approach allows agencies to investigate these 

interactions and diagnose potential safety issues through observations of modal behavior by 

stakeholders from various disciplines. 

modes interact with each other from both a behavioral and infrastructure perspective. Improvements to 

to view the transportation system as a whole—how motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and other 

one mode can enhance or detract from the safety of other modes, so it is important to think holistically 

and consider all possible outcomes as a result of suggested improvements. 
3 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Trends 

The number of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities in the U.S. has steadily increased since 2009. In the years 

between 2009 and 2018, pedestrian fatalities increased by 53 percent and bicyclist fatalities increased by 

37 percent. These increases far outpaced the increase in total traffic fatalities over the same time period, 

which saw only an 8-percent increase. As a result, pedestrians and bicyclists accounted for an increasing 

share of roadway fatalities over the past decade. Together, these vulnerable road users accounted for 20 

percent of all fatalities in 2018, up from 14 percent in 2009. The two-year average for 2016-2017 is 41

percent higher than the two-year average for 2008-2009. Meanwhile, the two-year average for fatalities, 

exclusive of pedestrians and bicyclists, was approximately the same for 2015-2016 compared to 2008-

2009.(4) 

 Source: 2018 NHTSA.

Figure 1. Graphic. Fatalities over the past 10-years in the U.S.(4) 

Note: Pedestrian fatalities do not include people using micromobility devices such as skateboards or stand-up scooters.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Percentage of Total Fatalities

Number of Fatalities

Pedestrians Bicyclists Other Fatalities Pedestrian & Bicyclist %
4 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Overall trends can be useful for understanding the scale and scope of the problem. Transportation 

agencies can then use details captured in crash reports to gain more insight into the factors contributing 

to pedestrian and bicyclist death and injury at specific locations. Though non-fatal crash data is not readily 

available nationally, many States have detailed records of all crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Using these sources, practitioners can gain an understanding of common characteristics that may 

contribute to crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists. The following sections summarize some of 

these factors, including types of locations where crashes occur, the role of road user separation, and the 

importance of visibility and conspicuity. 

Location Types 

Between 2009 and 2018, pedestrian fatalities increased by 

69 percent in urban areas and increased by 0.1 percent in 

rural areas. During this same period, bicyclist fatalities 

increased by 48 percent in urban areas and decreased by 8.9

in rural areas. These numbers and proportions are similar 

year-to-year, but annual differences, as well as differences 

by region, may relate to changes in land uses and density 

that are not fully reflected in the definitions of rural/urban in 

the data. Other trends may affect the rural and urban trends, including regional weather patterns affecting

the amounts of riding and walking, changes in population numbers, demographics, health-related 

characteristics, infrastructure, fleet characteristics, and types and amounts of urban and rural activity. 

These trends are not, at present, well-understood. 

While intersections are common locations for pedestrian crashes, both rural and urban areas across the 

country observe more pedestrian and bicyclist fatal and injury crashes at non-intersection locations (along 

segments) according to national fatal crash data (see references 6 and 7) and total crash data from North 

Carolina (see references 8 and 9). Overall, nearly 50 percent of pedestrians and about 38 percent of 

bicyclists are killed in urban areas at non-intersection locations across the U.S.(1,5) National trends do not 

apply to every jurisdiction, so agencies are encouraged to analyze local data to better understand the 

A majority of pedestrian and bicyclist 

fatalities occur in urban areas; 

79 percent of pedestrian fatalities and 

75 percent of bicyclist fatalities in 2018 

occurred in urban areas. 

Micromobility Crash Trends 

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data captures “personal conveyance” traffic 

deaths, but does not include which device was being used (e.g., roller skates, inline skates, 

skateboards, baby strollers, scooters, toy wagons, motorized skateboards, motorized toy cars, 

Segway-style devices, motorized and non-motorized wheelchairs, and scooters for those with 

disabilities).(5) As a result, data for micromobility devices or “personal conveyance” may be limited

and therefore difficult to quantify the safety performance of these modes. Agencies vary in how 

they capture crashes involving micromobility devices, like e-scooters, with some adding new 

vehicle types, while others include them in the bicycle category or do not record them at all due 

to crash reports lacking an appropriate field. 
5 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

variation within their transportation system. For example, Virginia found that 57 percent of pedestrian 

fatal crashes occurred at intersections.(10) An analysis of data from 2014 to 2016 for fatal pedestrian crash 

locations is shown in figure 2 and for fatal bicyclist crash locations in figure 3. 

©2018 PBIC. 

Figure 2. Graphic. Analysis of pedestrian fatalities by location from 2014-2016. (4) 

©2018 PBIC. 

Figure 3. Graphic. Analysis of bicycle fatalities by location from 2014-2016. (4) 

Separation of Road Users 

The number one type of collision leading to fatalities and injuries for bicyclists involves motorists 

overtaking bicyclists from behind (see figure 4). This type of crash led to 28 percent of all U.S. bicyclist 

fatalities as reported nationally. As with all crash types, there may be variation in observed trends by 

agency. For example, in North Carolina, overtaking bicyclists from behind represents a higher percentage 

of fatal and disabling (or severe) injury crashes, even in urban areas of the State. However, this type is not 

among the top crash types in data from Boulder, Colorado, where separated paths and bike lanes are 

more prevalent than in many jurisdictions across the U.S. FHWA’s Bikeway Selection Guide shows that 

separated bike lanes, with or without protected intersections, all but eliminate overtaking crashes.(9,13 ,14)
6 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©1999 PBIC. 

Figure 4. Graphic. Motorist overtaking crash type.(11)

While bicyclist fatalities in urban areas also commonly occur at signalized and other intersections, many 

“crossing path” type fatalities occur at intersections that lack traffic controls, such as crossing the 

uncontrolled leg of a two-way stop-controlled intersection. Other frequent crash types involve motorists 

turning left or right across the paths of bicyclists who are on a parallel path or involve bicyclists riding out 

from stop-controlled side streets where the motorist faces no traffic control (see figure 5 and figure 6). At 

signalized locations, the phasing may not separate turning and through movements.

(9)

©1999 PBIC.

Figure 5. Graphic. Motorist and bicycle turning conflict at an intersection. (11)

©1999 PBIC. 

Figure 6. Graphic. Motorist and bicycle crossing path conflict at an intersection. (11)
7 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

For pedestrians, 22 percent of crashes that result in fatalities or serious injuries—more than any other 

type—involve a pedestrian crossing a street and a through-traveling vehicle at both intersection and nonintersection locations. In 80 percent of those crashes, there is no traffic control present (i.e., no stop sign 

or signal) for the motorist.

(15,8) Agencies should analyze local data as these percentages will vary among

jurisdictions. For example, in New York (outside of New York City), 62 percent of urban crashes occurred 

when a pedestrian was crossing the road.(12)

 

What these types of frequently serious crashes have in common is that they typically occur at 

locations where the pedestrians and bicyclists are not separated in space through physical means, or 

in time through traffic controls or operational features. 

A study from the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. area showed that crash type trends can also change 

over time in the same area—likely for a variety of reasons that may include changes in demographics,

population, land use, travel patterns, and infrastructure, but which are not well-understood.(16)

Visibility and Conspicuity 

The above types of crash patterns and conditions are especially prevalent at night or at other times and 

locations where pedestrians and bicyclists are difficult for motorists to see. Around half of all bicyclist 

fatalities, and more than three-fourths of pedestrian fatalities occur at night, dawn, or dusk. Data from 

FARS show that the percentage of pedestrians who were killed in nighttime crashes has increased steadily 

for more than 10 years. In addition, bicyclists and pedestrians are typically traveling along the outer 

margins of roadway space where they may be blocked from view by traffic in other lanes, or by buildings, 

vehicles parked in close proximity to crossings, and other objects. Other factors, not well-studied, may 

also affect conspicuity—for example, headlights of opposite direction traffic may reduce conspicuity of 

pedestrians and bicyclists at night.

(9) There is some evidence that fluorescent colors during daytime, and 

lighting and reflective biomotion materials (e.g., reflective wrist and ankle bands that highlight human 

motion) at night, may improve driver detection of pedestrians and bicyclists, but crash effects are less 

certain.(17,18,19) Adaptive headlight beams may also increase the distance of detection of pedestrians and 

bicyclists but crash effects have not yet been documented since these were only approved for use in the 

U.S. in late 2018.(20)

Transit Interactions 

Analyses from Seattle, Washington and a few other jurisdictions have found that transit activity can 

increase the risk of pedestrian collisions. It is important to understand that transit use can have a positive 

impact on road user safety. However, the combination of increased pedestrian volumes and the reactions 

of drivers to transit vehicle stops, can lead to an increase in pedestrian crashes. These factors can be 

worsened by conspicuity issues and other factors.

(8,21)

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) 893 Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis 

noted that the presence of transit stops and the number of stops along a segment are both associated 

with pedestrian crash risk along segments.(22) Other transit activity measures, such as the number of buses 

stopping along a segment and increasing numbers of passengers boarding or alighting at a stop, were 

associated with an increase in pedestrian crash risk. 
8 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

The various types of transit come with different considerations for pedestrian and bicycle safety; however, 

any transit boarding and alighting area needs to accommodate all types of users with all types of abilities, 

should not block general pedestrian activity, and should be well-defined with a sufficiently sized waiting 

area and paths that access the waiting area. The following is a brief discussion of specific considerations 

for bus, bus rapid transit (BRT), light rail transit (LRT), and commuter rail. 

Bus 

Agencies identify bus stop locations that will maximize ridership and operate reliably. Within this 

framework there is flexibility in choosing stop locations—all of which can affect pedestrian and bicyclist 

safety. A far-side stop encourages pedestrians to cross behind the bus but can create sight distance issues 

for vehicles traveling in the opposite direction of the bus. A near-side stop allows passengers to access 

the bus closest to the crosswalk but can obscure curb signals and cause sight distance issues for drivers 

and pedestrians. A mid-block stop can reduce congestion at passenger waiting areas and minimize sight 

distance problems at intersections, but pedestrians must increase walking distance to crosswalks with the 

potential for an uncontrolled mid-block crossing. One should also consider bus transfers when placing 

bus stops. Placing stops on the same quadrant of the intersection eliminates the need for pedestrians to 

cross the road to transfer.

Bus stops should have good linkages to the existing pedestrian network through the use of sidewalks, 

curb ramps, and crosswalks. Bus activity should be a consideration when combining transit corridors with 

on-street bicycle facilities (see figure 7). For example, heavy transit corridors may not be suitable corridors 

for shared or on-street bicycle facilities. 

©2017 VHB.

Figure 7. Photo. Bus approaching a bus stop by crossing a bicycle lane.

Bus Rapid Transit 

The placement of BRT stops come with unique considerations. BRT stops may look like a curb side stop 

served by a local bus route and should be designed on local bus route principles as previously noted. BRT
9 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

platforms are sometimes located at-grade in the median between travel lanes. Because of this, it is 

important to consider surrounding traffic speeds, pedestrian refuge space, connections to crosswalks, 

pedestrian control devices and timing, and transfer activity. 

Light Rail Transit 

Pedestrian crossings should be clearly marked with pedestrian signals linked to the signals for the light 

rail and general traffic. Signs can provide warnings to pedestrians and bicyclists about LRT crossings—

flashers and gates may be used to warn pedestrians and bicyclists of approaching trains or to prevent 

crossings.

Commuter Rail 

Rail stations are large and can be a convergence of private vehicles, bicycles, buses, and pedestrians. 

Pedestrian facilities need to accommodate pedestrian surges (e.g., sidewalk width, crosswalk width) and 

should provide well-defined crossings. 

Risks for Crashes 

Prior analytic studies tell us that certain factors, such as roadway characteristics, increase the risk of 

collisions for pedestrians and bicyclists. The first and foremost risk is the amount of all types of traffic, 

but the relationships can be nuanced. As vehicle traffic increases, pedestrians may be discouraged from 

walking, especially in areas with poor infrastructure and higher speeds. In such cases, there may be 

relatively few collisions. Low crash numbers certainly do not indicate these locations are relatively safe and 

they may have a relatively high risk of severe collisions in the future. On the other hand, busy commercial 

areas and urban cores may have many people traveling by all modes. While collisions may be more 

frequent in such locations, the population-level risk of fatalities and serious injuries may be lower than in 

other areas. This is because traffic speeds are generally lower, and drivers may have a higher expectation 

to encounter pedestrians. At lower speeds, drivers also have a greater visual field and peripheral vision, as 

illustrated in figure 8. 
10 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Source: 2016 FHWA. 

Figure 8. Graphic. Relationship between vehicle speeds, pedestrian injury outcomes, and cone of vision.

(23)

Besides traffic, pedestrian and bicyclist crash risk may increase with the following: 

• Increasing number of lanes (including turn lanes) presenting more conflict points. 

• Increasing pedestrian crossing distance and roadway width, leading to greater exposure to traffic. 

• Decreasing separation in time, such as allowing free-flow turns or right-turn-on-red movements. 

• Decreasing availability of sidewalks or other facilities that separate pedestrians from motor vehicle 

traffic.

(8) 

Risks for Severity 

In addition to the crash risk relationships for pedestrians and bicyclists, certain factors increase the 

potential for more serious injuries when a crash occurs. 

Pedestrian and bicyclist injury severity may increase with the following: 

• Higher speeds at impact. A pedestrian’s chance of survival is exponentially greater at lower vehicle 

speeds, as seen in figure 8. At higher speeds, a driver may not have enough time or distance to 

react and stop their vehicle. 

• Pedestrian age (which is likely due to associations with increasing frailty and perhaps slower 

crossing times). 

• Heavier vehicles (even light trucks and sport utility vehicles compared with cars). 

• Nighttime. 
11 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

• Alcohol use by either the driver or person walking or biking. 

• Higher speed limits (by association with travel speeds). 

Principles of Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 

The RSA Team should include an expert(s) on pedestrian and bicyclist safety and facility design (e.g., 

sidewalks, bicycle lanes, Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] requirements). However, other members of 

the team should have a basic understanding of the principles of pedestrian and bicycle safety and what to 

consider while conducting the RSA. Additional information on RSA Team members can be found in the 

RSA Team section of the guide. While this document is not intended to serve as a comprehensive 

resource on pedestrian and bicyclist design principles, the following information provides a summary to 

help prepare the RSA Team and provide a base-level of understanding. Readers should refer to the 

references provided to learn more about pedestrian and bicyclist safety and design. 

Principles of Pedestrian Safety 

Some of the factors that may influence a pedestrian’s decision to walk (or not to walk) include the 

following: 

Distance and access to desired destinations. Pedestrians should have direct and connected walking 

routes to desired destinations that are accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The 

pedestrian network should be direct between key destinations, but also appropriate for characteristics of 

the surrounding conditions. An agency should understand pedestrians’ “desire lines” and seek to 

accommodate pedestrians in these locations. The pedestrian network should not have gaps or abrupt 

changes, as seen in figure 9. 
12 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©2017 VHB.

Figure 9. Photo. Pedestrians walking in the grass due to sidewalk discontinuity.

Accessibility and Space. Readers should refer to the ADA standards established by the Department of 

Justice (see reference 24). While these requirements are technically only applicable to newly designed, 

constructed, or altered facilities, agencies and designers should strive to provide the most accessible 

facilities possible. The space requirements below address general pedestrian needs as well as those to 

ensure accessibility. 

At a minimum, a 4-foot sidewalk can accommodate a single pedestrian using crutches, and pedestrian 

facilities need to be at least 5 feet wide to accommodate passing or walking side-by-side, as shown in 

figure 10. Overhead clearance to tree limbs or signs of at least 80 inches is needed to avoid injury to 

pedestrians. 

However, minimums are often inadequate to meet the needs of pedestrians. When large groups of 

pedestrians are present on the sidewalk, and sufficient space is not provided, pedestrian traffic will move 

slowly, causing some people to walk in the street, or cross to the other side of the street, violating driver 

expectancy. Even in less crowded areas, pedestrians may walk in the street if the sidewalk is not wide 

enough, or they may decide to cross the street at an unsafe location to reach a sidewalk with less traffic. 

Since walking is often a social activity, many pedestrians traveling in pairs or groups will walk in the street 

or along the grass in order to stay side by side with others.
13 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Source: 2020 FHWA.

Figure 10. Graphic. Minimum space for two wheelchairs passing, person with crutches, and vertical 

clearance.(24)

Figures 11, 12, and 13 show ADA and Proposed Rights-of-Way Guidelines (PROWAG) requirements for 

accessible routes, ramps, and for when a change of direction is needed, respectively.

Source: 2010 Department of Justice. 

Figure 11. Graphic. ADA standards and PROWAG requirements for accessible routes.(24)
14 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Source: 2010 Department of Justice. 

Figure 12. Graphic. ADA Standards for ramps.(24)

Source: 2010 Department of Justice. 

Figure 13. Graphic. ADA Standards for change in direction.

(24)

Intersection safety. Pedestrians may decide not to walk due to inadequate provisions at intersections for 

crossing safely. The provision of high-visibility marked crosswalks, pedestrian signals with accessibility 

features, median refuges to break up long crossings, limitations on right-turns-on-red, and other features 

may make intersections safer and more comfortable for pedestrians.

Necessity. People may walk because they do not have access to vehicles or may not have the physical 

and/or cognitive ability to drive.
15 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Safety and comfort. Some variables that may impact a pedestrian’s decision not to walk include highspeed traffic, lack of separation from vehicles, inadequate crossing facilities (see figure 14), lighting 

conditions, and poor quality of the walking experience. A facility may meet all design standards, but a 

pedestrian may feel uncomfortable and perceive the road as dangerous, especially if they are walking in 

close proximity to traffic. This highlights the importance of conducting field observations to note potential 

safety issues—both actual and perceived. The condition of the surface is a key factor in whether the 

facility is usable.

©2017 VHB.

Figure 14. Photo. Pedestrian waiting to cross a road without sidewalks or a marked crossing.

Health. Pedestrian facilities like sidewalks and multi-use paths provide opportunities to be physically 

active, which can improve health and overall quality of life.

(29)

Pedestrians have a wide range of ages and abilities, both physical and cognitive. Understanding the 

different needs of pedestrians will add to the RSA findings. Some individual characteristics that influence 

safety for pedestrians along the roadway and at crossings include walking speed, spatial needs, mobility, 

vision, cognitive abilities (e.g., young or old age, illness, substance impairment, distraction), and behaviors 

in crossing choices and waiting times. 

Principles of Bicyclist Safety 

Characteristics of the roadway have an effect on bicyclist safety. Some considerations are the presence 

and type of existing bicycle facility, traffic volumes and traffic vehicle mix (e.g., trucks, buses, heavy 

vehicles), presence or absence of parking turnover and curbside activity, driveway/intersection frequency, 

vehicle speeds, surrounding land use, populations of children and older adults, lighting, lane 

configuration, and network connectivity.

Some of the bicycle facility design factors that influence a bicyclist’s safety include the following: 

Space. A bicyclist needs a minimum operating width of 48 inches (60 inches is preferred) and height of 

100 inches. Figure 15 is adapted from the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities and the FHWA Bicycle Road Safety Audit 

Guidelines and Prompt Lists to show needed bicyclist operating space. (30,31)
16 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Source: 2012 FHWA. 

Figure 15. Graphic. Bicyclist operating space (31)

 

Length. Bicycles can come in a variety of configurations and sizes. Facilities that accommodate these 

ranges of bicycle types will result in higher levels of bicyclist comfort and safety. Figure 16 shows common 

bicycle configurations and dimensions and was adapted from the AASHTO Guide for the Development of 

Bicycle Facilities and the FHWA Bicycle Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists.

(30,31)
17 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Source: 2020 FHWA. 

Figure 16. Graphic. Variation in bicycle dimensions. Adapted from FHWA.

(31)

Stability. Bicyclists must maintain adequate speeds to be stable and avoid “zigzagging” at lower speeds, 

which increases space needed to safely operate. Surface condition of the roadway is important for 

bicyclist stability as well.

Speed, deceleration, and stopping. Uphill and downhill gradients can affect speeds and therefore 

distances needed to decelerate and stop, or to accelerate from a stop, and time needed to cross an 

intersection. Bicyclist speeds are also important for line-of-sight considerations at intersections. 

Network (facilities). The following are factors that should be considered in all contexts to provide safe 

accommodations for bicyclists: 

Directness. The bicycle network should be direct between key destinations, but also appropriate 

for characteristics of the surrounding conditions. An agency should understand bicyclists’ “desire 

lines” and seek to accommodate bicyclists in these locations.

Continuity and connectivity. The bicycling network should not have gaps or abrupt changes 

besides the beginning and end terminals of a bicycle facility. These transition areas typically occur 

when land use changes and should be clearly defined with signage or pavement markings. 
18 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Comfort. A bicyclist’s behavior may be influenced by the perceived risk and level of comfort. 

Factors affecting comfort levels can include degree of separation from vehicular traffic, lighting, 

roadway condition, and a rider’s confidence in ability. NCHRP 941 found that bicyclists rated 

facilities having a higher degree of separation from drivers more positively, with 

protected/separated bike lanes and multi-use paths being the best. The study also showed that 

parking was a clear deterrent for comfort, perceived safety, and willingness to bicycle.(32)

 

 
19 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

RSA Overview and Process 

The FHWA definition of an RSA is:

An RSA is a formal safety performance examination of existing or future roads or intersections by 

an independent audit team. The RSA Team considers the safety of all road users, qualitatively 

estimates and reports on road safety issues, and identifies opportunities for safety improvement. 

The primary focus of an RSA is safety while working within the context of mobility, access, surrounding 

land use, and/or aesthetics. RSAs enhance safety by bringing together a multidisciplinary team that 

identifies potential safety issues affecting all road users under all conditions and suggests measures for 

consideration by the design team or responsible agency. 

While all RSAs should include a review of multimodal safety, a pedestrian- and bicyclist-focused RSA 

strives to improve identified safety issues that may have resulted from changes in land use and mode 

choice over time or inadequate consideration of walking and cycling in previous planning and design 

processes. 

The aim of an RSA is to answer the following questions, which will also apply to pedestrian- and bicyclistfocused RSAs: 

• What elements of the road may present a safety concern: to what extent, to which road users, and 

under what circumstances? 

• What opportunities exist to eliminate or mitigate identified safety concerns?

An RSA is not simply a standards check. Although important, standards checks are included in the 

design process to confirm adherence to the design standards applicable to the project. The RSA Team 

may identify safety issues by comparing items of concern to standards and to key industry guidance 

publications. The general intent of an RSA is to identify areas where applied designs may interact 

with road user behaviors to generate a potential safety issue. Agencies may also use field 

observations to conduct other activities, like inventorying sign condition or other assets along a 

corridor or intersection. 
20 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

When Should RSAs be Considered? 

RSAs can occur at any stage of a project: 

• Pre-construction (planning, preliminary design, final design). 

• Construction (work zone traffic control plan, pre-opening). 

• Post-construction (existing roads open to traffic). 

While an RSA can occur at any stage of a project, agencies should strive to start an RSA at the earliest 

feasible stage. An RSA in the early stages of planning and design can identify issues when they can most 

easily be rectified. RSAs on existing projects are helpful in identifying pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

issues, in that, many agencies devote less resources to understanding such issues. Therefore, they may be 

unaware of problems or may not be experienced with detailed facility designs. It is a common perception 

that a pedestrian or bicyclist safety issue may not exist based on a review of reported crashes. However, 

many bicycle and pedestrian crashes go unreported, or the absence of facilities like sidewalks and bicycle 

lanes may suppress walking and biking. An RSA can help to overcome these challenges by identifying 

safety issues that are not identified in the data and opportunities to enhance the walking and biking 

environment. 

Pedestrian- and Bicyclist-Focused RSA Process

This section describes the eight steps recommended by FHWA to conduct an RSA, along with suggestions 

for adequately considering pedestrians and bicyclists in the process. Figure 17 illustrates the progression 

of these steps. The responsibilities of the project owner/design team and the RSA Team may vary during 

an RSA.

Source: 2012 FHWA.

Figure 17. Graphic. Eight-step RSA process.
21 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Step 1 – Identify Project or Existing Road for RSA 

The project owner (i.e., the person or agency that owns or is responsible for the project or facility) 

identifies the project(s) to be audited. The owner should develop clear parameters for the RSA. 

Evaluating the safety of both pedestrians and bicyclists may require looking beyond the specific 

roadway or project to include parallel pedestrian and bicycle paths, routes, and connections that 

may affect bicyclist and pedestrian safety. The parameters should define the RSA scope, schedule for 

completion, RSA Team requirements, required tasks and requirements on the content and format of the 

RSA report, and how responses to the RSA report will be handled. 

During this step, the project owner can use crash data to identify locations with the highest crash 

frequencies or severities to include in the RSA study area. Locations that do not have crash histories but 

have similar characteristics to high-crash locations, may also be considered in the study area because of 

these shared risk factors. Data can help support anecdotal evidence from the general public, pedestrian 

and bicycle advocacy groups, local officials, local school staff (e.g., principal, transportation director, 

superintendent), and other stakeholders to confirm locations that are considered more dangerous for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. Because data has limitations, conducting field observations provides valuable 

insights in roadway users’ behaviors and interactions that are not found in a database. See the Data 

Analysis section for detail on data analysis sources and methods. 

Step 2 – Select Independent and Multidisciplinary RSA Team 

The project owner is responsible for selecting the RSA Team or the RSA Facilitator/Team Leader. To make 

sure there is no conflict of interest and a fair and unbiased evaluation will be conducted, the RSA Team 

must be independent of the operation and design of the location(s) being assessed and cannot include 

members of the party charged with the development of the original plans or the facility owner. The 

project owner may select a set of qualified individuals from within its own organization, another 

transportation agency, or contract with an outside group. If a non-independent assessor wishes to 

evaluate the pedestrian or bicyclist safety elements of a project, the process may still be valuable but 

should not be considered a formal RSA.

The project owner should select an RSA Team that possesses a combined set of skills that address the 

most critical aspects of the project. For pedestrian and bicyclist RSAs, the team members should be aware 

of constraints and issues that affect those non-motorized users and have a background in (1) road safety; 

(2) traffic operations; (3) road design; (4) accessibility needs for pedestrians with disabilities; (5) bicycling 

safety, operations, or planning (or someone who understands the skills necessary for bicycling on the road 

with traffic); (6) transit operations; (7) enforcement (e.g., bike patrol officer); or (8) emergency medical 

services (EMS). 

Since the independence of the audit team is a requirement of an RSA, local agencies are encouraged to

contact the State Department of Transportation (DOT), the Local/Tribal Technical Assistance Program 

(LTAP/TTAP) center, FHWA Division Offices, or the FHWA resource center for assistance in finding team 

members.(26,27) The local agency may also find it helpful to contact neighboring local agencies directly to 

assemble an independent team. The owner should consider including individuals from local cycling 

organizations or bicycle and pedestrian committees, as they may provide valuable insights and detailed 

knowledge of the local area. Also consider inviting diverse members of the disability community to 

represent key disability perspectives (e.g., hearing, vision, cognitive, and mobility). 
22 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

The size of the RSA Team may vary. Small teams typically provide the greatest ability for team members to 

significantly contribute insights during the audit but may be limited in experience with the various areas 

of expertise. While three members may be adequate for some projects, that size may be insufficient for 

larger, more complex projects. The best practice is to have the smallest team that brings all the necessary 

knowledge and experience to the process.

Step 3 – Convene RSA Team Meeting 

The purpose of the RSA Team meeting is to make sure all RSA participants introduce themselves and their 

area of expertise, understand the RSA process, review the RSA data packet material (e.g., area map, crash 

data), provide an overview of schedule/logistics, and assign roles and responsibilities. RSA participants 

should be given a packet with relevant information (data, maps, schedule/logistics) to have in the field. 

Materials for this packet are discussed in the Logistics section and Appendix A. This meeting helps 

establish lines of communication between the RSA Facilitator/Team Leader and the project owner. At the 

end of the meeting, all parties should have a clear understanding of the scope of the RSA and each of 

their roles and responsibilities. 

Specific topics of discussion should include:

• RSA scope and objectives. 

• Pedestrian and bicyclist data (e.g., crash data, volumes, peak and off-peak hours of travel, 

locations of key pedestrian and bicycle generators, and citizen requests and complaints). 

• Context of the study area through sources like crash and volume data, maps/aerials, future 

transportation plans, transit accommodations, and surrounding land use.

• Design constraints, standards used, ADA Transition Plan, bicycle plans, and findings of previous 

studies (if applicable). 

• Local laws/statutes describing rights and duties of all road users. Key laws may include where 

bicycles are legally allowed to operate (i.e., sidewalk or street) and yield versus stop requirements 

for motorists at crosswalks.

Preferably, any available data should be provided to the participants for review and analysis prior to the 

RSA Team meeting. This enables the team to familiarize itself with the location, understand potential 

safety issues, and ask more focused questions.

Step 4 - Perform Field Reviews 

The RSA Team should review the entire site (as well as plans if conducting an RSA of a design),

documenting potential safety issues and project constraints (e.g., available right-of-way, impact on 

adjacent land). Issues identified during the review of the supplied data should be verified in the field. A 

thorough field review for an RSA should consist of the following: 

• Include a walk- or ride-through. The RSA Team should review the site during the daytime and 

nighttime to experience conditions from the perspective of all roadway users, with a focus on 

pedestrians and bicyclists. The RSA Team should walk, bicycle, and drive on or along the roadway

(and on the pedestrian and bicycle facilities, if available) and note potential issues with the 

physical elements, as well as the behavior of cyclists, pedestrians, and other road users (see figure 

18). The field review should also include visits during both peak and non-peak traffic conditions, 

as well as the afternoon when schools are let out, if applicable to the study area. Pedestrian and 
23 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

bicyclist safety, mobility, and access are

heavily influenced by traffic conditions 

and issues may change depending on the 

time of day. 

• Consider a wide range of abilities. A 

wide range of pedestrian and bicyclist 

experiences and capabilities should be 

accommodated. Pedestrian and bicyclist 

facility designs should accommodate 

children who lack experience and 

cognitive development judging vehicles 

and safe gaps for crossing and lane 

positioning, as well as adults with 

differing hearing, vision, cognitive, and

mobility levels.

• Consider visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists, especially at night. There are several reasons 

why the visibility of pedestrians and bicyclists may be limited. People do not only walk and bike 

for exercise but also choose those modes to run errands, travel to work, or for any other daily 

task. As such, they may not be wearing bright or reflective clothing. Additionally, the smaller 

profile of pedestrians and bicyclists reduces their conspicuity to motorists. During dark conditions, 

the smaller profiles combined with the lack of bright headlights and the placement/type of 

overhead lighting, can exacerbate the visibility and conspicuity issue. These factors increase the 

risk of collision, especially in situations where drivers are watching for potentially conflicting 

vehicles, such as where right-turns-on-red are permitted. 

• Examine the treatment and transition of bicyclist and pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian and 

bicyclist facilities should be designed with attention to connecting facilities throughout the 

project area and during construction. Discontinuities in pedestrian facilities can result in 

pedestrians being forced into the roadway, exposing them to increased risk of collisions. 

Alternatively, facility discontinuities for bicyclists can cause confusion for both motorists and 

bicyclists on lane position. 

• Consider pedestrian, bicyclist, and driver behavior beyond the project limits. Designs outside 

of the project limits may have a significant effect on users’ behaviors. An example of this is a 

traffic calming project that diverts traffic from a neighborhood, increasing the volume on main 

streets. If this diverted volume leads to congestion, it could change the site conditions for both 

drivers and pedestrians.

Key elements to observe include:

• Site characteristics (e.g., road geometry, sight distance, clear zones, drainage, surface condition, 

signing and marking, lighting, barriers). 

• Traffic characteristics (e.g., traffic/pedestrian/bicycle volumes, movements, speeds). 

• Human factors issues (e.g., road user behavior and deviations from normal, interactions between 

modes).

• Surrounding land uses (e.g., bicycle, pedestrian, and vehicle trip generators). 

©2017 VHB.

Figure 18. Photo. RSA Team conducting site observations.
24 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

The prompt lists in Appendix B are designed to be used during the field review to remind the RSA Team 

of numerous aspects of pedestrian and bicyclist safety. This includes a review of the prompt lists by the 

RSA Team in the field for each type of facility encountered, annotating any issues on paper and with 

photographs. 

Step 5 - Analyze and Report on Findings 

Following the field review, the RSA Team should convene to discuss observations made in the field. The 

team should work together to identify positive features throughout the study area and safety issues based 

on data from the field visit and pre-audit material. Identification of safety issues should not be solely 

based on pedestrians and bicyclists; safety issues affecting all roadway users should be acknowledged and 

considered in this process. Issues should not be noted for traffic operations, like delay or queue lengths, 

unless there is a clear link to safety. For each identified safety issue, there should be a corresponding

recommendation. These recommended improvements should be identified in various areas like 

engineering, education, enforcement, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), or any other areas that may be 

beneficial to user safety on the facility. It can be beneficial to the implementing agency if the RSA Team 

categorizes the recommendations into short-, mid-, or long-term timeframes. Seeing a complete list of 

recommendations may be overwhelming to an agency as it may not seem clear how to proceed. Noting 

timeframes can help the implementing agency begin to plan and program funding toward these projects. 

These findings are compiled into a report. The resulting RSA report is a concise document, that includes a 

brief description of the project, a list of the RSA Team members, materials used in conducting the RSA, 

and a summary of findings and suggestions for improvement. The report includes pictures and diagrams 

that may be useful to illustrate points made. An example report outline is provided in Appendix A. Other 

resources can be found on FHWA’s RSA webpage.(28)

In addition to timeframe, the safety issues may also be prioritized by the RSA Team based on the 

documented risk (through crash data or exposure analyses) or perceived risk. Perceived risk may be based 

on the expected crash frequency and the expected severity of a crash. Expected crash frequency is 

qualitatively estimated by expected exposure (i.e., how many road users will likely be exposed to the 

identified safety issue) and probability (i.e., how likely is it that a collision will result from the identified 

issue). Expected crash severity is qualitatively estimated based on such factors as anticipated speeds, 

expected collision types, and the likelihood that vulnerable road users will be exposed. These two risk 

elements (frequency and severity) may be combined to obtain a qualitative risk assessment based on the 

matrix shown in table 1. 

Table 1. Prioritization matrix.

Frequency 

of Crashes

Severity of Crashes

Possible/Minor 

Injury Moderate Injury Serious Injury Fatal

Frequent Moderately High High Highest Highest

Occasional Middle Moderately High High Highest

Infrequent Low Middle Moderately High High

Rare Lowest Low Middle High
25 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Step 6 – Present RSA Findings to Project Owner 

The RSA Team may present their findings and recommendations for improvement in various ways 

depending on the project. The presentation can take place in-person or as an online meeting, as a 

slideshow or preliminary report. The findings and recommendations may either be draft or final at this 

time. The purpose of this meeting is to finalize the RSA report and to make sure the report will adequately 

address the scope and objectives of the RSA. The project owner may ask questions to seek clarification on 

the RSA findings or suggest additional/alternative mitigation measures. At the conclusion of this step, the 

RSA Team provides a final review of the RSA report. 

Step 7 - Prepare Formal Response 

After reviewing the RSA report, the project owner should prepare a written response that outlines what 

actions the project owner will take with respect to each safety concern listed in the RSA report. To build 

support for the findings and the overall RSA process, the RSA findings may be presented in a public 

meeting or the report could be made available to the public. The timeframe for making this information 

public may vary for each agency. 

Step 8 - Incorporate Findings 

After the response to the RSA report is prepared, the project owner should work to implement the 

agreed-upon safety measures or create an implementation plan. Implementation of the suggested 

measures is at the discretion of the project owner and appropriate staff based on their project schedules 

and available funds. 

Data Sources 

There are numerous primary and secondary sources of information that can support the RSA Team’s 

preparation for the field review and throughout the report drafting process. These sources include 

information on crashes, roadway characteristics, land use, proposed site plans and roadway 

improvements, transit, and community observations. Each type of data provides valuable insights into 

how bicyclists and pedestrians are experiencing—or will experience—the corridor as well as safety 

performance and potential safety improvements.

Crash Data 

If available, crash data for bicyclists and pedestrians can aid in 

identifying locations or situations where safety is a concern. The 

infrequency of bicyclist and pedestrian crashes compared to only 

vehicle-to-vehicle crashes necessitates multiple years of data to see 

any trends; a minimum of 3 years of crash data is recommended, 

but 5 to 10 years is ideal. Crash data should be geolocated or 

contain location information to be processed for inclusion on crash 

diagrams. FARS does not capture crashes that do not involve 

vehicles, so hospital and urgent care records (e.g., intakes of blunt 

force trauma) can be a useful source of injury data.

Crash reports also provide valuable insight into circumstances 

surrounding a crash. The narratives provided in these reports 

explain driver or pedestrian behaviors that resulted in the crash. This 

Crash data is critical to the 

RSA process. However, there 

are limitations related to 

under-reporting. Additionally, 

certain contributing 

circumstances for crashes can 

be difficult to capture because 

it requires drivers and 

pedestrians to self-report 

violations, such as distraction, 

drowsiness, and substance 

impairment. 
26 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

information, however, varies by crash and may not be practical to analyze for each crash within the study 

area. For smaller RSA areas with fewer pedestrian crashes, it may be beneficial to review individual crash 

reports to identify trends or patterns in behavior. It can also be beneficial to have one or two sets of 

these crash reports on-hand during the RSA to provide a deeper understanding of how the site is 

functioning. The FHWA Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) can help practitioners in the 

analysis of crash typologies.(33) This tool enables users to develop a database of details associated with 

crashes between motor vehicles and pedestrians or bicyclists. PBCAT users can analyze the data, produce 

reports, and select countermeasures to address the problems identified by the software.

The process for obtaining crash data is dependent on the jurisdiction; while some local agencies maintain 

crash databases, the respective State DOT may manage that information. Enough time should be allotted 

for requesting data, as requests may require disclosure forms and other requirements. If possible, the 

crash data should include the reporting law enforcement officer’s crash narratives and diagrams and 

should also be supplemented with hospital admittance records to assist in understanding contributing 

crash factors and injury outcomes. Also, crash data for vehicular crashes may be considered in the 

analysis, since such crashes provide insights into common safety issues like elevated vehicle speeds, low 

yielding rates, turning vehicle conflicts, and access management issues that affect all users. 

In addition to crash data, secondary sources of data can be obtained about near misses or perceived 

safety/access issues through pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups, community surveys, crowd-sourced 

data, online forums, or complaint hotlines. 

Roadway and Traffic Data 

Information on roadway geometry, posted speeds, lane configuration, parking utilization, bicycle and 

pedestrian facilities, lane/shoulder widths, signalized intersection operation (e.g., signal phasing, turn 

restrictions), history of improvement projects, and multimodal volumes are essential inputs prior to the 

field review. Many of these data needs can be met by the local liaison or host agency, and sufficient time 

should be considered when requesting data. If certain roadway information is not available, review of 

aerial maps and other mapping resources and discussions with RSA Team members may be sufficient.

Gathering volume data for all modes and types of vehicles is important to better understand the context 

of the RSA area. If available, important information to obtain within the study area include traffic volumes 

(e.g., Average Annual Daily Traffic [AADT], short-term counts, video log) for various modes (e.g., vehicles, 

pedestrians, bicyclists), truck and heavy vehicle usage percentages, intersection turning movement counts, 

and transit stop locations with boardings and alightings. If exposure data is unavailable—especially for 

bicycle and pedestrian activity—secondary sources of data can be obtained through pedestrian and 

bicycle advocacy groups, community surveys, crowd-sourced data, or online forums for a qualitative 

understanding of volumes and routes. 

Observational Data 

While not a primary source of data, observations from the community and local RSA Team members are 

critical in understanding the RSA study area. Such observations may include speed studies and/or 85th

percentile speed, vehicle yielding rates, bicycle and pedestrian behaviors, and perspectives on perceived 

unsafe locations. Sources of observational data may include the local bicycle and pedestrian committees, 

local cycling groups, and neighborhood or chamber of commerce organizations. 
27 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Land Use and Trip Generation Data 

Understanding land use and its effect on pedestrian and bicyclist mobility and safety is foundational to 

preparing for the RSA field review. Different land uses impact the amount, time, and pattern of bicycle and 

pedestrian trips. For example, a commercial district with shopping and grocery stores will likely experience 

heavy pedestrian and vehicle volumes during the evening and weekend hours, whereas a school location 

will see higher volumes of younger pedestrians and turning vehicles (for pick up and drop off) during the 

morning and mid-afternoon periods. Additionally, employment centers with shift-based work will likely 

experience peaks of pedestrian activity during low-light conditions that deserve special consideration 

during the nighttime field review. Land use information may also guide data on pedestrian and bicycle 

counts; certain land use combinations, like schools and parks, are anticipated to generate higher volumes 

of pedestrian activity. 

Relevant Plans and Policies 

Review of site plans, infrastructure designs, other improvement projects, and related policies for the RSA 

study are of high priority before the field review. In some instances, the RSA itself may have been initiated 

based on anticipated pedestrian and bicyclist activity from the redevelopment of an area. Policies and 

standards are also important for understanding the study area and potential improvements to address 

safety issues. Relevant plans and policies to consider include:

• Local capital improvement plans. 

• Plans for roadway or safety improvements. 

• ADA Transition Plans. 

• Bicycle, pedestrian, and greenway plans. 

• Corridor and small area plans. 

• Plans for changes in land use/property access. 

• Transit short- and long-range operations plans. 

• Site plans for parcels of significance. 

• State Transportation Improvement Plan projects. 

• Regional transportation plans (Metropolitan Transportation Plan, Comprehensive Transportation 

Plan, or equivalent). 

• Complete Streets policies. 

• Safe Routes to School or School Zone policy. 

• Roadway design standards. 

• Curbside activities, policies, and schedule (e.g., street cleaning, trash collection, EMS access). 

• Planned maintenance activities (e.g., repaving, mowing, sign replacement). 
28 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Analysis Methodologies 

Once the data are assembled, the RSA Facilitator or Host may conduct analyses to identify focus areas, 

modify the RSA study area, or add as additional background to guide the study team during the RSA 

process. There are several approaches to analyzing the data sources above to inform the RSA. These 

include the analysis methods below, which may be used in combination to provide a complete review of 

bicyclist and pedestrian safety issues.

Hot Spot and Crash Diagramming 

Hot spot or crash cluster analysis involves the mapping of individual crash events over the period of study 

(i.e., at least 3 years of crash data). Mapping these locations will reveal notable locations where crashes 

have occurred in high frequencies. These areas may include corridors and intersections that share 

common features or similar land uses. Crash severities should also be considered, especially deeper 

investigation into the contributing factors and behaviors of fatal and serious injury crashes. Grouping 

crashes can show areas with potential for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. If police reports are 

available (or if the crash data provide sufficient detail), creating crash diagrams can also illustrate the 

details surrounding bicycle and pedestrian crash events, such as the position of the pedestrian or bicyclist 

and angle of the vehicle.

Systemic Analysis 

Systemic analysis can complement hot spot analysis. Systemic analysis can reveal locations that have high 

crash risks but currently display low bicycle and pedestrian crash frequencies or rates. This type of analysis 

is particularly important for bicyclists and pedestrians as there is proven under-reporting and if a hot spot 

Data Limitations 

The RSA Team should fully understand constraints related to each data source, especially for 

crash data and crash diagramming. The review of crash data alone is generally not sufficient 

to comprehensively identify and address pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues in large part 

because of the factors that contribute to a crash, which are not always captured in a crash 

report. The RSA Team should consider that the reported crashes only represent a portion of 

the crashes that have occurred. Law enforcement-collected crash data typically only contain 

crashes involving motorized vehicles. Research shows a consistent underreporting of 

pedestrian and bicyclist crashes. As many as 55 percent of pedestrian crashes and even 

more bicyclist crashes may be missing from police-reported crash data.(1)The underreporting of these crashes may be due to a variety of factors, including crash reporting 

thresholds related to damage and the fact that police only collect crash data that involves 

collision with a motor vehicle. Although more difficult to obtain, the RSA Team should 

consider seeking other sources of data, such as hospital or emergency department records or 

indications of bicycle crashes from self-reports to area agencies. Seeking input from 

community groups, such as local cycling groups, may help provide information on cycling 

conditions and “close calls.” The team should also focus on conflicts and conditions that are 

likely to have contributed to unreported crashes.
29 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

analysis was solely used, the smaller amount of crash data may limit the RSA Team’s understanding of 

true locations of concerns. This methodology looks at the crash data as a whole and identifies associated 

factors, such as roadway design and traffic controls, lighting presence (or absence), vehicle speeds, and 

pedestrian destinations. Combinations of these factors can help identify countermeasures to address and 

reduce the risk of bicycle and pedestrian crashes. FHWA’s Systemic Safety website provides more 

information on the systemic approach to safety, including a tool for systemic project selection.(34,35)

 

Network Connectivity 

Assessing the connectivity of the pedestrian and bicycle network can reveal gaps along roadways and at 

midblock and intersection locations. The RSA Team should consider existing and planned improvements 

when evaluating the level of connectivity within the study area. In situations where the main roadway has 

high vehicle volumes, high speeds, or few dedicated pedestrian and bicycle facilities, the study team 

should include parallel roadways in the network connectivity review, as such routes may provide increased 

comfort and reduced vehicle conflicts.

 
30 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

 
31 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Roles and Responsibilities 

The following section will discuss the logistics of conducting an RSA, including a discussion of team 

members’ duties, recommended materials for meetings, field visits considerations, and the use of 

innovative technologies and resources.

Project Owner 

The project owner is the person/agency that owns or is responsible for the project or facility that will be 

audited. The owner should develop clear parameters for the RSA that define the RSA scope, outline a 

schedule for completion, highlight the recommendations of the RSA Team, plan for field observation,

outline content and format of the RSA report, and determine how responses to the RSA report will be 

handled. The project owner may also assume some (or all) of the responsibilities of the RSA Host.

RSA Host 

The RSA Host is responsible for the planning and logistics of the RSA. The project owner may also be the 

RSA Host, but if these roles are separated, this person may be responsible for the initial selection of the 

project area, securing an event date, reserving a meeting location, reserving field visit vehicles (if 

applicable), recruitment of and communication to the RSA Team, preparing/printing RSA Team packet

materials, and assembling field visit materials.

RSA Facilitator/Team Leader 

The RSA Facilitator/Team Leader must be deeply familiar with the RSA process and each participant’s roles 

and responsibilities. This person is responsible for developing and leading the RSA workshop 

presentation, facilitating the field visit, and preparing the report. The Facilitator/Team Leader may also be 

responsible for refining the project area, preparing the agenda, and creating map packet contents. 

RSA Team 

The goal is to form an independent and multidisciplinary team that will draw upon deep and skilled 

knowledge of their discipline to share complementary perspectives of the study area. The variety of 

disciplines that make up a diverse team can include the following:

Essential members

• Transportation Engineer - Roadway designers and can weigh-in on how designs relate to 

standards and plans for the agency. Traffic operations engineers can provide insights into design 

standards and potential changes to the roadway environment or signal timing. 

• Transportation Planner – Planners can weigh-in on long-range plans and how land use may 

change and influence mode choice, mode shift, and pedestrian and bicyclist activity.

• Safety Specialist – These staff could include planners, traffic engineers, or others that have 

specialized in safety. These stakeholders can provide a perspective on quantitative safety and the 

use of tools and techniques to estimate the expected safety performance in terms of crash 

frequency and severity across the various modes.
32 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

• Transportation pedestrian and bicyclist expert – While the information provided in this guide 

provides an overview, it is important to have a team member who is intimately knowledgeable on 

transportation safety considerations for bicyclists and pedestrians and who understands the 

needs of pedestrians with disabilities. One person may be able to fill this role, or it may require 

several individuals. 

• Law enforcement/first responders – Law enforcement officers are on the streets every day and 

can provide their observations and insights into the crash reports, as well as information on 

crashes that may not have met the reporting threshold or where citations were issued. First 

responders can also provide information on crashes that may not have been reported but where 

they responded to a crash. It is helpful if these members can stay for the entire RSA. However, 

given time constraints they may only be able to participate for a portion of the time. Either way, 

their insights are invaluable to the RSA process.

• Public works and maintenance – These staff provide the perspective on construction and 

maintenance of the facilities. Participation in the RSA can provide them with an understanding of 

some regular maintenance to improve non-motorized access and safety. 

Optional Members

• Pedestrian and bicycle advocacy/vendors – These organizations and businesses—such as local 

bicycle shops or rentals—have an intimate knowledge of the transportation network, how it is 

working, and specific concerns/suggestions identified by their members/customers. These 

perspectives are important, and a representative can be involved in the RSAs or can provide input 

at the kickoff meeting or a separate meeting. If it is possible to incorporate a bicycle ride, then 

members of these organizations may be helpful in leading the ride or organizing bikes for 

participants. 

• Community development – Representatives from community development or business districts 

may be able to provide insights from their members and community. Sometimes these 

conversations can lead to public-private partnerships for implementing improvements or 

disseminating messaging. 

• School representatives – If there is a school located within the study area, involve them in the 

process. Some considerations include how students and staff access the school and provide 

opportunities for walking and biking. Crossing guards may have insight into safety issues and the 

interactions and behaviors between students and drivers. If possible, involve students in future 

efforts to encourage and improve safety for walking and biking.

• Community leaders – Community representatives and leadership can provide feedback from 

community members, at least during the kickoff meeting or a separate meeting. 

• Public transit – If public transit is present within the study area, understanding the transit types 

and how transit riders access stops are all important to pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

• Accessibility representative – Some of the essential team members should have expertise in 

ADA requirements for pedestrians and bicyclists. However, it may be beneficial to involve a 

specialist in this area or members from the accessibility community. The RSA is not a standards 

check, but having this perspective confirms the facilities work for users of all abilities. 

Based on the RSA site and special features or considerations important to the agency, the participant list 

may vary from those listed above. It is the responsibility of the RSA Team to be active participants

throughout the RSA process. This includes gathering field data (e.g., compiling notes and taking pictures
33 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

or video of both positive features and potential issues related to the infrastructure, roadway users’ 

behaviors, and maintenance activities), sharing unique perspectives and expertise to the group, asking 

questions, and contributing to and reviewing the final report. 

Logistics 

As outlined in the eight steps, the RSA has many components like setting a date and meeting location, 

assembling the RSA Team, compiling and analyzing data, conducting a field visit, recommending

solutions, and preparing a final report. The RSA Facilitator and RSA Host are responsible for coordinating 

these activities for a successful RSA. The following sections should be considered when planning and 

conducting the RSA. 

RSA Team Packets

The RSA Facilitator should develop packet contents to provide the relevant data and instruction for a 

productive RSA. These materials can include site maps, crash data tables/summaries, crash diagrams, 

prompt lists, and other supporting RSA materials. For certain material, like maps and aerial imagery, it

should be printed in a way that the RSA Team can write notes and/or draw on the aerial imagery and 

maps in the field. Ensure that all materials and meetings are accessible to individual team members with 

disabilities.

Field Visit Locations 

The RSA Facilitator should predetermine the sequence of locations where RSA participants can safely 

meet to begin review of the site or segment. If the RSA area is large, then the RSA Team may be split up 

for adequate coverage. The area should be well defined and communicated to the RSA Team to make the 

best use of time and minimize time where observations are not being made.

Meals 

The Facilitator should coordinate with the RSA Team how to address meals throughout the RSA field visit

so observations are ongoing by at least some RSA Team members. For example, the mid-day lunch rush is 

an important time to observe pedestrian and bicyclist activity, so lunch breaks for the RSA Team members 

should be staggered in a way so that observations are continuous during the whole lunch peak. 

Vehicles 

Depending on the size of the RSA area, the location of the pre-field meetings, and if the RSA Team will be 

split up across the study area, the RSA Team may need to drive to reach the desired locations. In the case 

where driving is required, the RSA Facilitator/Host should coordinate vehicle use, whether that is one 

vehicle, shared vehicles, or a combination of vehicles. 

General Field Review Considerations 

The RSA Facilitator and RSA Host must understand the site and known concerns and consider overall 

health and safety of the review team.

If there are locations that are unsafe to observe field conditions, the RSA Team should still experience the 

site in whatever method possible (such as driving through the site but not getting out and observing as a 

large group). Consider gathering other observational data from other means, such as setting up a video 

camera. 
34 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

The RSA Facilitator and Host should discuss the range of likely weather conditions for the RSA and inform 

the participants of the recommended clothing, footwear, and personal protective equipment (if 

applicable). Discussing weather may also shape how and when the RSA is conducted and contingencies 

should weather not cooperate. It may be difficult to spend long periods outdoors in high heat or cold 

conditions and weather events may change the types of users on the road and how they behave. 

However, in areas where it snows frequently, that may not deter pedestrians and bicyclists and those 

observations can make clear what parts of the roadway are used. It is important to get an accurate 

observation of road users in a way that is safe for the RSA Team. 

The RSA Team should have the following materials during the field review:

Essential

• Safety vests. 

• Camera/smartphone. 

• Chargers/batteries (for phones, tablets, cameras). 

• Team packets with clipboards. 

• Writing utensils (e.g., pen, marker, highlighter). 

• Clipboards or rigid notepads.

• Measuring wheel/tape. 

• Water bottle.

• Weather protection (e.g., hats, sunglasses, sunscreen, gloves, coats).

Optional 

• Flashlight.

• Light meter. 

• Radar gun to measure speeds.

Innovative and Advanced Technologies and Resources 

Technology can be a useful tool to gather additional data and supplement the findings with camera or 

video footage. For example, mobile applications can be developed for smartphones and tablets to 

geolocate pictures taken in the field and add captions or notes. Other mobile applications can track 

movements of pedestrians and bicyclists and could be a source of data to indicate common routes and 

origins and destinations of trips. Figure 19 shows a screenshot of Strava heatmap data available for free 

from their website. Data from sources such as this may not be indicative of every type of user; however, it 

can help inform an RSA Team’s knowledge about users and how they travel through the study area. 
35 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©2019 Strava. 

Figure 19. Graphic. Strava bicycle and pedestrian heatmap data for Boise, Idaho. 

Cameras mounted on a vehicle as seen in figure 20 capture footage while driving through the study area. 

This footage confirms aerial imagery and roadway inventory databases, like seen in figure 21. Screenshots 

of the footage can also be used in the final report to show safety issues. 

©2019 VHB.

Figure 20. Photograph. Camera-mounted vehicle. 
36 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©2019 VHB. 

Figure 21. Photograph. Google Earth footage. 

The RSA Team can set up video cameras at a single location or intersection to capture pedestrian and 

bicyclist activity for a longer duration than feasible in the RSA field observation, as seen in figure 22 and 

figure 23. This is useful in areas where pedestrian or bicycle activity is low or is more prevalent late in the 

night. 

©2019 VHB. 

Figure 22. Photograph. Example of video footage monitoring crosswalk use. 
37 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©2019 VHB. 

Figure 23. Photograph. Additional video footage showing transit access. 
38 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Exploring Alternatives to In-Person RSAs

In response to the national pandemic in 2020, many agencies restricted in-person travel and 

working/gathering in groups. Additionally, other travel restrictions due to budgets and specific staffing time 

constraints can limit in-person meetings and events. Regardless, there is an ongoing need for identifying and 

implementing necessary safety improvements. While in-person RSAs are always ideal, many transportation 

agencies created virtual solutions to maintain momentum. Notably, the City of Albuquerque conducted a 

remote RSA with stakeholders and partners, including FHWA, the New Mexico Department of 

Transportation, Albuquerque Police Department, Mid-Region Council of Governments, and other 

stakeholders. The following are tools and tips used to overcome the potential challenges of a remote RSA. 

• Use technology to enhance communication and understanding: Any virtual event relies heavily 

on available technology, and this RSA was no different. The team maximized technology to collect 

data prior to the RSA and to gather collectively, which helped the team understand the site better 

and to feel connected to the rest of the RSA Team. The RSA Team used drones (see figure 24 and 

figure 25) to capture footage of the corridor from various vantage points, hosted a web room with 

video capabilities and screen sharing, and requested that participants turn on their video as much as 

possible during discussions. The video component helped participants to connect with one another 

throughout the meetings.

• Prepare and collect data in advance: RSAs always require advance data gathering, such as 

assembling and analyzing crash and traffic data; however, the remote RSA required even more 

upfront work. In preparation for the RSA, City of Albuquerque staff gathered additional information 

about the corridor and community experiences, which included walkability audits prior to the RSA, 

interactions with community groups, collection of the drone footage and speed data, and photos of 

the corridor. The data and information collected provided the RSA Team a fuller understanding of 

the experiences and needs along the corridor. 

©2020 City of Albuquerque. 

Figure 24. Photograph. Sample drone footage from the Albuquerque RSA.
39 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

• Communicate with team members and stakeholders: Every RSA participant brings a unique set 

of skills and experiences that are valuable to the RSA Team. As with all RSAs, it was important to 

establish an environment where all felt comfortable sharing their thoughts and to provide 

opportunities for each team member to speak. Verbal and non-verbal communication was fostered 

using web-cameras through the process. Facilitators and local organizers also asked pointed 

questions to specific participants to hear their thoughts or experiences. The chat function in the 

virtual meeting room also allowed members of the team to share links, thoughts, and questions with 

all participants. The entire RSA Team in Albuquerque was engaged throughout the process. 

• Incorporate in-person components: In-person components are vital to the success of an RSA. 

Despite advances in technology, there are still many elements that can only be fully understood by 

an in-person review of the study area. The City of Albuquerque performed advanced in-person field 

reviews and after the first day of the RSA, some local staff walked the study area, took additional 

photos, and made observations. The photos and experiences conveyed the characteristics of the 

study area to the RSA Team and helped all team members better understand the safety issues. 

©2020 City of Albuquerque.

Figure 25. Photograph. Sample drone footage from the Albuquerque RSA.

 
40 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

 
41 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Definitions 

Figure 26 shows some of the various bicycle and pedestrian facilities and accommodations that are 

mentioned in this section. The graphic is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent design 

standards. The image is not to scale and shows optional combinations of facilities and accommodations. 

Source: 2020 FHWA. 

Figure 26. Graphic. Illustration of various bicycle and pedestrian facilities and accommodations (not to scale). 

Bicycle—A device propelled solely by human power having two or more wheels in tandem, including 

children’s bicycles, except a toy vehicle intended for use by young children such as a tricycle. Some 

bicycles may have electric components or pedal assists. Definitions and laws regarding bicycles, and 

those with electric components, and use of bicycle facilities vary between agencies.

Bicycle Boulevard—A street segment (or series of contiguous street segments) that has been modified to 

accommodate through bicycle traffic but discourage through motor traffic.

Bicycle (Bike) Box—A defined and/or colored area at a signalized intersection provided for bicyclists to 

pull in front of waiting traffic. The box is intended to reduce car-bike conflicts, particularly involving rightturning movements across the path of a bicyclist, and to increase bicyclist visibility.
42 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Bicycle Facility—A general term denoting infrastructure and provisions to accommodate or encourage 

bicycling, including parking and storage facilities and shared roadways specifically designated for bicycle 

use. 

Bicycle (Bike) Lane—A portion of a roadway that has been designated by striping, pavement markings, 

and signs for the preferential or exclusive use of bicyclists. 

Bicycle (Bike) Path—A facility that is intended for the exclusive use by bicyclists, where a separate, 

parallel path is provided for pedestrians and other wheeled users. Most pathways are shared between 

bicyclists and other uses (see Shared Use Path). 

Bikeway—A generic term for any road, street, path, or traveled way that is in some manner specifically or 

legally designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive 

use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes. 

Buffered Bicycle Lane—bicycle lanes with a painted buffer to increase lateral separation between 

bicyclists and motor vehicles. 

Bus/Bikeway—A marked lane for exclusive use by buses and cyclists. May also be referred to as a 

bus/bicycle lane.

Complete Streets—Roadways that are designed with the safety of all users in mind, including but not 

limited to motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users.

Contraflow Bicycle Lane—A bicycle lane that allows bicyclists to travel the opposite direction of motor 

vehicle traffic on a one-way street.

Controlled Pedestrian Crossing—A pedestrian crossing where motorists are required to stop by either a 

STOP sign, traffic signal, or other traffic control device.

Crash Modification Factor (CMF)—A multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of 

crashes after implementing a given countermeasure. If available, calibrated or locally developed State 

estimates may provide a better estimate of effects for the State.

Crash Reduction Factor (CRF)—The percentage crash reduction that might be expected after 

implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site.

Curb Extensions—A roadway edge treatment where the curb line protrudes out toward the middle of the 

roadway to narrow the width of the street. Curb extensions are sometimes called “bulbouts” or

“neckdowns.”

Cyclist (Bicyclist, Rider or Bike Rider)—A person who is riding a bicycle.

High Visibility Crosswalk—A pedestrian crossing location marked by patterns such as wide longitudinal 

lines parallel to the flow of traffic as described by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). 

Loop Detector—An inductive (wire) loop embedded in the pavement that detects the presence of a 

vehicle at a signalized intersection to activate a signal change. Diagonal quadruple loops typically provide 

the best bicycle detection.
43 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Marked Crosswalk—A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by crosswalk pavement markings in 

accordance with the MUTCD. 

Mid-Block Location—A non-intersection location where nonmotorized users cross the roadway. Midblock locations may or may not be a marked crossing for pedestrian or bicyclist activity.

National Bike Routes—A national network of bike routes that may span multiple States or have national 

or regional significance.

On-Road Accommodation—A facility that is part of the roadway or traveled way that is typically used by 

bicyclists and/or motor vehicles such as a wide curb lane, bicycle lane, or bikeable shoulder.

Off-Road Accommodation—A facility that is separate from the roadway used by motor vehicles. This 

may parallel a roadway or may be separate from a road on an independent alignment. This separate 

facility can be separated from pedestrian traffic (bicycle path) or shared with pedestrian traffic (shared use 

path).

Parking Restriction—Parking restrictions can include the removal of parking spaces, or the installation of 

new signs and markings that prohibit parking in specific areas. 

Paved Shoulder—The portion of the roadway contiguous with the traveled way for accommodation of 

stopped vehicles, for emergency use, and for lateral support of sub-base, base, and surface courses. Use 

by cyclists may be allowed or prohibited based upon specific State and local laws.

Pedestrian—Any person afoot or using a wheelchair (manual or motorized) or means of conveyance 

(other than a bicycle) propelled by human power, such as skates or a skateboard.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)—A traffic control device with a face that consists of two red lenses 

above a single yellow lens. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in the dark until a pedestrian activates it 

via a pushbutton or other form of detection. PHBs are also known as “HAWK” beacons, which is an 

acronym for High-intensity Activated crossWalK beacons.

Protected Intersection—Modeled after Dutch intersection design, a protected intersection brings 

physical protection as bicyclists ride through the crossing. A protected intersection has four main 

elements, (1) a corner refuge island, (2) a forward stop bar for bicyclists, (3) a setback bicycle and 

pedestrian crossing, and (4) a bicycle-friendly signal phasing.

Raised Crosswalk—Raised crosswalks are crosswalks that have been elevated to the level of the sidewalk 

and span the entire width of the roadway. They are often placed at midblock crossing locations to 

reinforce pedestrian priority to drivers.

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (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. RRFBs are placed on 

both ends of a crosswalk. If the crosswalk contains a pedestrian refuge island or other type of median, an 

RRFB should be placed to the right of the crosswalk and on the median (instead of the left side of the 

crosswalk). The flashing pattern is pedestrian-activated by pushbuttons or automated detection and is 

unlit when not activated.
44 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Refuge Island— Space within a curbed median or channelizing island where pedestrians can wait to 

continue crossing a roadway. This countermeasure is sometimes referred to as a crossing island or 

pedestrian island.

Road Diet—A roadway reconfiguration that can result in a reduction in the number or width of travel 

lanes. The space gained is typically put to other uses and travel modes. 

Roadway—The portion of a highway, including the shoulder, that is improved, designed, or ordinarily 

used for vehicular travel. 

Separated Bicycle Lane—A separated bicycle lane is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located 

within or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic with a 

vertical element. Separated bicycle lanes can be one-way or two-way and the physical separation can be 

curbs, flex posts, or on-street parking. One-way separated bicycle lanes, especially those with a physical 

curb, have been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to their greater actual and 

perceived safety and comfort. 

Shared Lane—A lane of a traveled way that is open to bicycle travel and motor vehicle use.

Narrow Lane—A travel lane less than 14 feet in width, which therefore does not allow bicyclists 

and motorists to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane and maintain a safe separation 

distance.

Wide Curb Lane—A travel lane at least 14 feet wide, adjacent to a curb, which allows bicyclists 

and motorists to travel side-by-side within the same traffic lane.

Shared Lane Marking (SLM or “Sharrow”)—A pavement marking symbol that assists bicyclists with 

lateral positioning in lanes that are too narrow for a motor vehicle and a bicycle to travel side-by-side 

within the same traffic lane. 

Shared Roadway—A roadway that is open to and legally permits both bicycle and motor vehicle travel; 

any existing street where bicycles are not prohibited.

Shared Use Path—A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular traffic by an open space or 

barrier and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. Shared use 

paths may also be used by pedestrians, skaters, wheelchair users, joggers, and other non-motorized users.

Such facilities are often referred to as “trails” or “multi use path.”

Sidepath—A facility for pedestrian and bicyclist use that is physically separated from the travel lanes 

using elements such as a curb, flex post, or on-street parking. Sidepaths are designed to support and 

encourage pedestrian use where an on-road bicycle facility, like a separated bicycle lane, exists. 

Sidewalk—The portion of a street or highway right-of-way reserved for preferential or exclusive use by 

pedestrians. 

Signed Shared Roadway (Signed Bike Route)—A shared roadway that has been designated by signing 

as a preferred route for bicycle use. 

Traffic Calming—A way to design or retrofit streets to encourage slower and more uniform vehicle 

speeds.
45 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Traveled Way—The portion of the roadway, excluding shoulders, bike lanes, and sidewalks, to be used 

for the movement of vehicles. 

Two-Stage Turn Queue Boxes—These designated areas in an intersection provide a safe way to make 

left turns at from a right-side bicycle lane, or right turns from a left side bike lane.

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing—An established pedestrian crossing that does not include a traffic

signal, pedestrian hybrid beacon, or STOP sign to require that motor vehicles stop before entering the 

crosswalk. 

Vehicle Queue—A line of stopped vehicles in a single travel lane, commonly caused by traffic control at

an intersection.
46 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

 
47 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Appendix A: Sample Materials 

Sample Agendas 

The following are sample RSA agendas for varying lengths from one to two days in length. The time 

needed for an RSA will depend on the size of the study area and the number of sites or specific times 

needed for observation. For example, for a location with a school, it will be important to view both the 

beginning and end of the school day. Times may also vary depending on peak periods, but also make 

sure to observe during off-peak times as well. When developing the RSA agenda, be sure to build in time 

to drive, walk, and, for bicycle-focused RSAs, bike the site. 

Key

General meeting – all need to attend especially “roadway owners” (i.e., persons responsible for 

development of plans and/or facility owner).

RSA team activity – all who are interested in participating in the site visits and developing 

suggestions (excluding facility owner).

Optional RSA team activity – not required, but welcomes all who are interested in participating.

Sample #1 - Full day RSA

9:00 – 9:30 AM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Introduction to the Project and RSA process 

9:30 – 10:30 AM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Review Background Data 

and Field Packets 

10:30 AM– 4:00 PM Field Observations

- Lunch breaks (staggered to not miss lunch 

activity)

4:00 – 5:00 PM Audit Findings Workshop/Debrief

- Summarize observations

- Potential recommendations

5:00 – 6:00 PM Preliminary findings meeting

Evening* Optional night field observations

 
48 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

 

Sample #2 – 1 1⁄2 Day RSA (PM and AM Field Observations)

Day 1 

1:00-1:30 PM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Introduction to the Project and RSA process

1:30-2:30 PM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Review Background Data 

and Field Packets 

3:00-6:00 PM Field Observations

Evening* Optional Night Observations

Day 2 

7:00 AM -12:00 PM Morning Field Observations

1:00-4:00 PM Audit Findings Workshop

4:00-5:00 PM Preliminary Findings Meeting

Sample #3 – 2-day RSA

 Day 1 

9:00 – 9:30 AM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Introduction to the Project and RSA process

9:30 – 10:30 AM RSA Kickoff Meeting: Review Background Data 

and Field Packets 

10:30 AM– 5:00 PM Field Observations

- Lunch breaks (staggered to not miss lunch activity)

Evening* Optional night field observations (timing based on sunset)

 Day 2 

7:00 AM -12:00 PM Morning Field Observations

1:00-4:00 PM Audit Findings Workshop

4:00-5:00 PM Preliminary Findings Meeting
49 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Sample Crash Diagram 

Figure 27 and figure 28 are two examples of crash diagrams. There are many ways to create the diagrams 

and how to summarize/display the information. These examples uses symbols to represent crash types 

and a combination of color and smaller symbols to denote injury severity, speed, weather, and light 

condition.

©2019 VHB. 

Figure 27. Graphic. Collision diagram.
50 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

©2019 VHB. 

Figure 28. Graphic. Collision diagram with pedestrian crash details.
51 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Sample Field Packet 

• Agenda/schedule. 

• General overview map of study area (e.g., aerial view of roadway, crash summary, Severity Index, 

speed limit, transit summary, ped/bike/vehicular volumes, major destinations or traffic generators, 

special considerations [schools, hospitals, homes for the aging], crash severity profile, 3-year 

average). 

• An aerial with crash diagram and crash summary for each focus/hot spot location. 

• Blank notes page. 

• Maps of vehicular crashes. 

• Prompt lists (not necessary for each person). 

• Crash reports (1-2 copies for the group to share). 

• Supplemental information could include:

o Pedestrian or bicycle plan or route maps. 

o Traffic signal plans. 

o Future/planned development. 

 
52 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

RSA Report Outline 

1. Introduction

a. Background on study area

b. Objective of RSA

c. Relationship to other efforts (Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plans, Vision Zero) 

2. RSA site locations

3. Geometric conditions and multimodal volume summary 

a. Vehicle traffic

b. Pedestrian and bicyclist traffic 

c. Transit

4. Crash history

a. Pedestrian and bicyclist crash history

b. Vehicle crash summary 

5. RSA Team members and roles/areas of expertise

6. Assessment findings

a. Positive existing features

b. Vehicle capacity analysis (if applicable)

i. Alternative 1

ii. Alternative 2

c. Identified safety issues and suggestions for improvements (include pictures or 

illustrations) 

7. Improvements suggested for consideration and implementation timeframe (near- to long-term)

a. Signalized intersection A

b. Intersection B

c. Mid-block C 

d. Potential crosswalk D

e. Signalized intersection E 

f. Mid-block F 

8. Conclusions
Appendix B

Prompt List
53 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Appendix B: Prompt List 

Location 

Physical Environment / Infrastructure

Presence/Placement Quality/Condition Connectivity/ 

Consistency Visibility Lighting Transit

Universal 

Considerations 

for Study Area

• Do facilities address 

ped and bike needs, 

including those with 

disabilities? 

• If future changes are 

proposed to the 

transportation system or 

surrounding land use, 

will those needs still be 

met?

• Are ped and bike facilities 

in good condition and 

accommodate users with 

disabilities?

• Are safe, 

continuous, and 

convenient ped 

and bike routes 

provided 

throughout the 

study area?

• Do obstructions block 

the view of roadway 

users?

• What obstructions block 

the view of pedestrian 

and bicycle facilities (e.g., 

crosswalks, traffic control 

devices, signs)?

• Does the sun create 

visibility issues at certain 

times of day? 

• Are ped and 

bike facilities 

well-lit? 

• Can peds and 

bikes be seen 

by motorists 

during dark 

conditions?

• How does

transit 

infrastructure 

interact with ped 

and bike 

facilities?

Along Street

(including 

driveways) 

• How are peds and 

bikes accommodated

on both sides of the 

road?

• Are facilities shared, 

separate, or buffered?

• What is the comfort

level for users? 

• Are ped and bike 

facilities appropriate for 

the adjacent land use?

• Do parked vehicles 

obstruct ped paths?

• Does parking 

adversely affect bike

safety?

• Are the bike/ped facilities 

in good condition and wellmaintained?

• Are there obstacles (e.g. 

utility poles or signs) in the 

pedestrian travel path? 

• Are the sidewalks wide 

enough for two people to 

walk together?

• Does vegetation or debris 

infringe on pedestrian or 

bicyclists facilities?

• Is the pavement free of 

obstacles (e.g., potholes, 

drainage grates, 

longitudinal joints)?

• How are peds

accommodated at 

driveways/ access 

points?

• Are ped 

walkways 

continuous?

• Are bike routes 

continuous?

• Are there obstructions 

blocking the driver’s view 

of peds and bikes? 

• Are driveways designed 

with peds and bikes in 

mind (e.g., less driveway 

density, access 

management, proper 

signage, pavement 

markings)? 

• Are sidewalks 

and bicycle 

facilities 

adequately lit?

• Are there 

sufficient 

boarding areas

(5 feet along 

curb, 8 feet 

perpendicular to 

curb line) and 

visibility at 

transit stops?

• Do ped and 

bike facilities 

connect to 

transit stops?
54 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Location 

Physical Environment / Infrastructure

Presence/Placement Quality/Condition Connectivity/ 

Consistency Visibility Lighting Transit

Mid-Block Crossing 

(marked) 

• Are there crossing 

enhancements?

• What are the 

distances between 

the mid-block 

crossing and other 

marked crosswalks?

• Are signs and 

pavement 

markings in good 

condition and 

visible/legible? 

• Does this 

crossing lead 

to/from a ped/bike 

generator?

• Are there obstructions blocking 

the view of signs or pavement 

markings?

• Does roadway curvature 

(horizontal and/or vertical) 

impede adequate sight distance 

between drivers and 

peds/bikes? 

• Are 

pedestrian 

crossings 

adequately lit?

• Is there a 

transit stop 

located midblock?

• Are transit 

users 

crossing 

mid-block to 

get to/from 

the transit 

stop?

Observed Mid-Block 

Crossings 

(unmarked) 

• Are crossings 

isolated or a frequent 

route used by 

pedestrians or 

bicyclists?

N/A

• How far is it to 

the nearest 

controlled 

crossing?

• Why are peds/ 

bikes crossing 

mid-block and not 

at the closest 

marked crossing?

• Are there 

generators that 

lead to pedestrians 

and bicyclists 

crossing midblock?

• Are there obstructions blocking 

the view of pedestrians and 

bicyclists?

• Does this 

section of 

roadway have 

lights?

• Are midblock 

crossings 

occurring 

near transit 

stops?
55 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Location 

Physical Environment / Infrastructure

Presence/Placement Quality/Condition Connectivity/ 

Consistency Visibility Lighting Transit

Intersections 

• How are peds and 

bikes accommodated 

(accessible ped signal, 

bike box, crosswalks, 

bike signal)?

• What intersection 

characteristics 

increase/decrease ped 

and bike safety (e.g., 

channelized right turns, 

large cub radii, wide 

crossing distances, 

right-turn-on-red)?

• How many legs have a 

crosswalk? In what condition?

• Are ped push buttons 

accessible, with a locator tone, 

properly located and connected 

to the walkway, and functioning 

correctly?

• Are curb ramps in good 

condition and ADA-compliant 

for each crosswalk or does a 

single curb ramp serve both 

crosswalks?

• Are intersection 

enhancements to 

signs, pavement 

markings, and signals 

consistent across 

intersections in the 

study area?

• Do crosswalks line 

up with sidewalks?

• Can peds, 

bikes, and drivers 

see each other at 

all legs?

• Are there utility 

poles, signs or 

other objects 

blocking the view 

of traffic?

• Do skewed 

intersections 

divert drivers' 

focus from peds?

• Is the 

lighting 

adequate at 

all corners 

of the 

intersection?

• Do ped 

and bike

facilities 

connect to 

transit 

stops?

• Are transit 

stops on the 

near or far 

side of the 

intersection?

Shared Use Paths

and Grade-Separated 

Crossings 

• Do bicyclists have 

adequate space to ride 

comfortably (e.g., 

horizontal and vertical 

clearance at tunnels and 

bridges, construction 

zones, guardrails, 

fences)?

• Do pedestrians have 

sufficient width to walk 

comfortably and is 

access to the facility 

accessible to individuals 

with disabilities?

• Are bollards present? 

• Does condition of the facility 

promote personal safety?

• What material is the structure 

(freeze/thaw)? 

• Are the grades and cross 

slopes accessible to individuals 

with disabilities?

• Is there adequate drainage?

• Does wildlife affect comfort 

levels?

• Are sideslopes adequate for 

bikes to return to the roadway if 

lane departure occurs? 

• Are facilities properly 

maintained (free of vegetation, 

snow)?

• Are bollards appropriate 

height, well-marked, provide 

enough room for 

accommodations of users with 

disabilities, and set back far 

enough from roadway?

• Are bike facility 

transition areas 

designed appropriately 

with logical termini or 

do they end abruptly, 

potentially contributing 

to sudden and difficult 

merges, uncontrolled 

crossings, or 

behaviors such as 

wrong-way riding?

• How is access 

provided to 

destinations if gradeseparated?

• Is the facility 

connected to other 

ped facilities in the 

area?

• Does poor 

visibility 

compromise 

personal safety?

• Does the speed 

of users affect 

their ability to see 

and react to 

shared use path 

connections?

• Is 

adequate 

lighting 

provided?

• Are 

connections 

to transit 

provided?
56 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Location 

Traffic Control Devices

Signs and 

Pavement Markings Signals Compliance?

Universal 

Considerations 

for Study Area

• Are signs and pavement markings for 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities present 

and effective?

• Are pedestrians and bicyclists accommodated at 

signals through adequate signal timing and phasing?

• Are pedestrian push buttons accessible, with a 

locator tone, properly located and connected to the 

walkway, and functioning correctly?

• Do motorists, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists follow traffic laws?

Along Street

(including 

driveways) 

• Are bicycle pavement markings 

adequate? N/A N/A

Mid-Block 

Crossing 

(marked) 

• Are crossing points for pedestrians 

properly signed and/or marked? Are curb 

ramps provided?

• Are there signage enhancements for the 

crossing, such as RRFBs or flashing 

beacons?

• Are there any devices (i.e., PHB or signalization) to 

control the crossings?

• If so, are pedestrian push buttons accessible, with a 

locator tone, properly located and connected to the 

walkway, and functioning correctly?

• Are drivers, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists compliant with traffic 

control devices?

• Are drivers yielding to 

pedestrians?

• Are bicyclists yielding to 

pedestrians?

Intersections 

• Is paint on stop bars and crosswalks 

worn, or are signs worn, missing, or 

damaged?

• Are there sign or pavement marking 

enhancements?

• How long is the pedestrian or bicycle signal? Is there 

enough time to cross?

• Is there a pedestrian countdown and/or bicycle 

signal?

• Do pedestrians and bicyclists use push buttons to 

actuate a crossing?

• Is there a leading pedestrian interval (LPI)? Is it 

accessible to pedestrians with vision disabilities? Are 

bikes allowed to utilize the early start?

• Are there restrictions on turning-movements, like no 

right-turn-on-red?

• How long do pedestrians have to wait in between 

signals?

• Do vehicles have protected or permitted left-turn 

control?

• Are drivers, pedestrians, and 

bicyclists compliant with traffic 

control devices?

• Are drivers yielding to 

pedestrians (especially at rightturn)?

• Are bicyclists yielding to 

pedestrians?

Shared Use 

Paths and 

GradeSeparated 

Crossings 

• Do signs provide wayfinding or advance 

warning of at-grade intersections? N/A N/A
57 

Pedestrian and Bicyclist RSA Guide 

Location 

Operations / Interactions / Behaviors 

Characteristics Mode Behavior Interactions of Modes

Universal 

Considerations 

for Study Area

• Are design, posted, and operating traffic 

speeds compatible with pedestrian and 

bicyclist safety?

• Is the safety of children in school zones 

adequately considered?

• Do pedestrians or motorists regularly misuse or 

ignore pedestrian facilities?

• Are drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists behaving in 

a safe, compliant manner?

• Are behaviors systemic across the network or at 

isolated locations?

• Do roadway users look/scan for 

other travel modes?

• Are drivers and bicyclists yielding to 

pedestrians at crossings?

• Do drivers allow extra space or 

reduce speeds when overtaking or 

driving near bicyclists?

• How do pedestrians and bicyclists 

interact with transit facilities?

Along Street

(including 

driveways) 

• Do scooters, bicycles, skateboards, or 

non-motorized vehicles create hazards 

for pedestrians (e.g., operating or parking 

on sidewalk)? 

• Are vehicles traveling at appropriate 

speeds?

• If available, are bicyclists using their dedicated 

facilities?

• Are drivers yielding to pedestrians at 

driveways?

• Are there conflicts between bicycles 

and pedestrians on sidewalks?

Mid-Block 

Crossing 

(marked) 

• What are vehicle speeds?

• What are traffic volumes?

• Are people using the mid-block crossing?

• Are drivers yielding to pedestrians or bicyclists in 

the crosswalk?

• Are the physical environment and 

traffic control devices adequate for a 

safe crossing?

Observed MidBlock 

Crossings 

(uncontrolled) 

• What are vehicle speeds? • Are pedestrians and bicyclists waiting for gaps? • Are drivers expecting crossing 

pedestrians or bicyclists?

Intersections 

• What are vehicle speeds?

• What are vehicle, pedestrian, and 

bicycle volumes at the intersection?

• Are drivers stopping in the crosswalk?

• Are pedestrians crossing with or against the 

pedestrian signal, if present?

• Do pedestrians and bicyclists use push buttons to 

actuate a crossing?

• Is it clear between roadway users 

who has the right-of-way and is there 

compliance?

• Do drivers yield to pedestrians and 

bicyclists when turning right or left?

Shared Use 

Paths and 

GradeSeparated 

Crossings 

• Is there a mix of grade-separated and 

at-grade crossings?

• Do pedestrians walk in a way that blocks the path 

for other users?

• Are bicyclist speeds too fast for conditions?

• Does a mix of grade-separated and at-grade 

intersections influence behavior (e.g., higher speeds, 

less expectancy of crossing conflicts)? 

• Are there pavement markings that 

separate users? How are such 

separations communicated to 

pedestrians with vision disabilities?

• What are the levels of comfort for 

users?
59 

Appendix C: Resources 

Appendix C: Resources 

Planning and Performance Measurement Resources 

A Resident’s Guide for Creating Safer Communities for Walking and Biking (FHWA) 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/residents_guide2014_fin

al.pdf

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Apply Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (FHWA) 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_netw

orks/fhwahep16055.pdf

ActiveTrans Priority Tool (PBIC) http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/tools_apt.cfm

Bike Network Mapping Idea Book (FHWA) 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/bikemap_book/

Case Studies in Delivering Safe, Comfortable and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Networks (FHWA) https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/

publications/network_report/network_report.pdf

Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures (FHWA) 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/performance_me

asures_guidebook/pm_guidebook.pdf

Measuring Multimodal Network Connectivity (FHWA)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_conn

ectivity/fhwahep18032.pdf

Metropolitan Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/pedestrian_bicycle/publications/mpo_hand

book/fhwahep17037.pdf

Noteworthy Local Policies That Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Networks https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa17006-Final.pdf

Pedestrian Safety Program Technical Assessment (NHTSA) https://one.nhtsa.gov/DrivingSafety/Pedestrians/Pedestrian-Safety-Program-Technical-Assessment:-Process-Overview

Resources for Conducting Pedestrian and Bicyclist Counts (PBIC)

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/countingestimating.cfm

Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA) 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhw

ahep17024_lg.pdf

Statewide Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Handbook 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/pedestrian_bicycle/publications/pedestrian

_bicycle_handbook/fhwahep14051.pdf
60 

Appendix C: Resources 

Resources for Diagnosing Safety Problems 

FHWA RSA Case Studies https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/case_studies/fhwasa06017/

Road Safety Audit Tools (PBIC) 

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/resources/resources_details.cfm?id=5085

Countermeasure and Design Resources 

Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (FHWA)

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/bikesafe/

Bikeway Selection Guide (FHWA)

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (FHWA) http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

Design Resource Index (PBIC) 

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/resources/resources_details.cfm?id=4975

Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access (FHWA)

Part I: Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalks/

Part II: Best Practices Design Guide 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/sidewalk2/

Incorporating On-Road Bicycle Networks into Resurfacing Projects (FHWA) 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/resurfacing/resur

facing_workbook.pdf

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations (FHWA)

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at

_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

Guide for the Development of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO) 

Guide for the Development Bicycle Facilities 2012 4th Edition (AASHTO) 

Guide for Maintaining Pedestrian Facilities for Enhanced Safety (FHWA) 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa13037/fhwasa13037.pdf

Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO) https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-designguide/

Urban Bikeway Design Guide (NACTO) https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikewaydesign-guide/

How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Action Plan (FHWA)

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_focus/docs/fhwasa17050.pdf
61 

Appendix C: Resources 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA) https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

Pedestrian Safety Guide for Transit Agencies (FHWA) 

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

Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse (FHWA) http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/

Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection Systems (FHWA) 

http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/

Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (FHWA)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikela

ne_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pdf

Small Towns and Rural Multimodal Networks (FHWA)

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/small_towns/fhw

ahep17024_lg.pdf

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool (FHWA) 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/

The Road Diet Informational Guide (FHWA)

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/rdig.pdf

USLIMITS2: A Tool to Aid Practitioners in Determining Appropriate Speed Limit 

Recommendations (FHWA) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/uslimits/

Behavioral Resources 

Advancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety: A Primer for Highway Safety Professionals 

(NHTSA) https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812258-peds_bike_primer.pdf

Bicycle Safer Journey (FHWA) http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/bicyclesaferjourney/

Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway 

Safety Offices (NHTSA)

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/812478_countermeasuresthat-work-a-highway-safety-countermeasures-guide-.pdf

Data Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety (DDACTS)

https://one.nhtsa.gov/Driving-Safety/Enforcement-&-JusticeServices/Data%E2%80%93Driven-Approaches-to-Crime-and-Traffic-Safety-(DDACTS)

National Pedestrian Safety Campaign (FHWA)

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/pedcampaign/

Pedestrian Safer Journey (FHWA) http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pedsaferjourney/

Pedestrian Safety Enforcement Operations: A How-To Guide (NHTSA)

https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/812059-

pedestriansafetyenforceoperahowtoguide.pdf
62 

Appendix C: Resources 

Safe Routes to School Guide (PBIC, NHTSA, FHWA, CDC, ITE) 

http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/

Policy Resources 

Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (US 

Access Board) https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streetssidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-guidelines

Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Shared Use Paths 

https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/shareduse-paths/supplemental-notice

Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Standards https://www.access-board.gov/guidelinesand-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/ada-standards/doj-s-2010-

ada-standards

National Complete Streets Coalition and Smart Growth America (Smart Growth America) 

https://smartgrowthamerica.org/program/national-complete-streets-coalition/

Noteworthy Local Policies that Support Safe and Complete Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Networks (FHWA) https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa17006-

Final.pdf

Road to Zero Coalition (National Safety Council) https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/getinvolved/road-to-zero

Vision Zero Network (Vision Zero Network) https://visionzeronetwork.org/
63 

Appendix C: Resources 

References 

1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (n.d.). Safety. FHWA.

http://pedbikeinfo.org/factsfigures/facts_safety.cfm. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

2. FHWA. (2020). Office of Safety Proven Safety Countermeasures. FHWA.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

3. Nabors, D., Gross, F., Moriarty, K., Sawyer, M., & Lyon, C. (2012). “Road Safety Audits:

An Evaluation of RSA Programs and Projects.” FHWA, Report No. FHWA-SA-12-037.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/case_studies/fhwasa12037/fhwasa12037.pdf. Last

accessed March 31, 2020.

4. NHTSA. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. https://www.nhtsa.gov/researchdata/fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars.

5. NHTSA. (2019). Pedestrian Traffic Safety Facts 2017. NHTSA.

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681. Last accessed

March 31, 2020.

6. NHTSA. (2019). Traffic Safety Facts: 2017 Data, Bicyclists and Other Cyclists. NHTSA,

Report DOT HS 812 765, June 2019, Accessed September, 13, 2018 [online], Available:

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681

7. NHTSA. (2019). Traffic Safety Facts: 2017 Data, Pedestrians, NHTSA, Report DOT HS

812 681, March 2019, Accessed September 13, 2018 [online], Available:

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681

8. Thomas, L., Vann, M., & Levitt, D. “North Carolina Pedestrian Crash Trends and Facts

2011-2015.” University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/pdf/summary_ped_facts11-15.pdf. Last

accessed March 31, 2020.

9. Thomas, L., Nordback, K., & Sanders, R. (2019). Bicyclist Crash Types on National,

State, and Local Levels: A New Look. Transportation Research Record 2673(6), 664-676.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361198119849056. Last accessed March

31, 2020.

10. Virginia Department of Transportation. (2020). Virginia Pedestrian Crash Assessment.

11. Harkey, D.L., J. Mekemson, M.C. Chen, and K.A. Krull, PBCAT: Pedestrian and Bicycle

Crash Analysis Tool, Version 1.0, Software and Users Manual (Publication No.

FHWARD-99-192), Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, December 1999.

12. New York State Department of Transportation. (2016). New York State Pedestrian

Safety Action Plan.

https://www.ny.gov/sites/ny.gov/files/atoms/files/pedestriansafetyactionplan.pdf. Last

Accessed April 30, 2020.

13. Vann, M., Thomas, L. & Levitt, D. (2018). North Carolina Pedestrian Crash Types 2012-

2016. The University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center.

http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_nc/pdf/summary_ped_types12-16.pdf. Last

accessed March 31, 2020.

14. Schultheiss, B., D. Goodman, L. Blackburn, A. Wood, D. Reed, and M. Elbech. (2019).

Bikeway Selection Guide. FHWA. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf. Last accessed March 31, 2020.
64 

Appendix C: Resources 

15. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2018). Webinar on Using Crash Types to

Understand Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information

Center. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/webinars/webinar_details.cfm?id=18. Last

accessed March 31, 2020.

16. Preusser, D., Wells, J., Williams, A., & Weinstein, H. (2002). Pedestrian crashes in

Washington, DC and Baltimore. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 34(5), 703-710.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457501000707?via%3Dih

ub. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

17. Kwan, I., & Mapstone, J. (2009). Visibility aids for pedestrians and cyclists: a systematic

review of randomised controlled trials. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(3), 305–

312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00008-3. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

18. Hoffman, M. R., Lambert, W. E., Peck, E. G., & Mayberry, J. C. (2010). Bicycle commuter

injury prevention: it is time to focus on the environment. The Journal of Trauma, 69(5),

1112–7; discussion 1117. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181f990a1. Last

accessed March 31, 2020.

19. Tin, S. T., Woodward, A., & Ameratunga, S. (2013). Incidence, risk, and protective

factors of bicycle crashes: Findings from a prospective cohort study in New

Zealand. Preventive Medicine: An International Journal Devoted to Practice and

Theory, 57(3), 152–161.

20. Bullough, J. D., Skinner, N. P., & Plummer, T. T. (2016). Assessment of an adaptive

driving beam headlighting system: Visibility and glare. Transportation Research

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2555, 81–85.

https://doi.org/10.3141/2555-11. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

21. Thomas, L., Lan, B., Sanders, R., Frackelton, A., Gardner, S., & Hintze, M. (2017).

Changing the Future? Development and Application of Pedestrian Safety

Performance Functions to Prioritize Locations in Seattle, WA. Transportation Research

Board 96th Annual Meeting Compendium Papers.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.3141/2659-23. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

22. Thomas, L., Kumfer, W., Lang, K., Zegeer, C., Sandt, L., Lan, B., Nordback, K., Bergh, C.,

Butsick, A., Horowitz, Z., Toole, J., & Schneider, R. (2018). NCHRP Research Report 893

Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis.

23. Porter, C., Danila, M., Fink, C., Toole, J., Mongelli, E., & Schultheiss, W. (2016).

Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts.

FHWA, FHWA Report No. FHWA-HEP-16-055.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_

networks/fhwahep16055.pdf. Last Accessed March 31, 2020.

24. 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. (2010). Department of Justice.

25. Thomas L., Sandt L., Zegeer, C., Kumfer, W., Lang, K., Lan, B., Horowitz, Z., Butsick, A.,

Toole, J., & Schneider, R. (2018). NCHRP 893 Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis.

26. FHWA Division Offices webpage. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm.

27. FHWA Resource Center webpage. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/.

28. FHWA RSA webpage. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/resources/.

29. Sandt, L., Thomas, L., Langford, K., & Nabors, D. (2015). “A Resident’s Guide for

Creating Safer Communities for Walking and Biking.” FHWA, FHWA Report No.

FHWA-SA-14-099.
65 

Appendix C: Resources 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_cmnity/ped_walkguide/residents_guide201

4_final.pdf. Last accessed March 31, 2020.

30. AASHTO. (2012). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

31. Nabors, D., Goughnour, E., Thomas, L., DeSantis, W., & Sawyer, M. (2012). Bicycle

Road Safety Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists. FHWA, FHWA Report No. FHWA-SA12-018.

32. Watkins, K., Clark, C., Mokhtarian, P., Circella, G., Handy, S., & Kendall, A. (2020).

NCHRP 941 Bicyclist Facility Preferences and Effects on Increasing Bicycle Trips.

33. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. (2020). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash

Analysis Tool (PBCAT). http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/pbcat_us/index.cfm. Last accessed

May 1, 2020.

34. FHWA Systemic Approach to Safety webpage. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/.

35. FHWA Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/.
FHWA-SA-20-042