Photo: VHB

Guide for Improving 

Pedestrian Safety 

at Uncontrolled 

Crossing Locations

July 2018, Updated
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. This report does not 

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

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 the document.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. REPORT NO.

FHWA-SA-17-072

2. GOVERNMENT ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NO.

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

5. REPORT DATE

January 2018 (July 2018, Updated)

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

CODE

7. AUTHOR(S)

Lauren Blackburn (VHB), Charles Zegeer (HSRC), and Kristen Brookshire (HSRC)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NO.

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME & ADDRESS 10. WORK UNIT NO.

11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NO.

DTFH61-16-D-00005

VHB

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 300

Vienna, VA 22182

The University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill

Highway Safety Research Center (HSRC)

104 Airport Drive, Suite 2200

Chapel Hill, NC 27599-1350

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

14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

FHWA

15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The Task Order Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) for this task was Rebecca Crowe.

16. ABSTRACT

This guide assists State or local transportation or traffic safety departments that are considering developing a policy 

or guide to support the installation of countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. This document 

provides guidance to agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. By focusing 

on uncontrolled crossing locations, agencies can address a significant national safety problem and improve quality of life 

for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. Agencies may use this guide to develop a customized policy or to supplement 

existing local decision-making guidelines. 

The January 2018 version of this guide was updated to include the Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). FHWA 

issued a new Interim Approval (IA-21) for the optional use of RRFBs in March 2018.

17. KEY WORDS

pedestrian crash countermeasures, uncontrolled crossings, midblock crossings, 

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, Road Diet, crosswalk visibility enhancements, 

pedestrian refuge island, raised crosswalk, Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT

No restrictions.

19. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS

REPORT) Unclassified

20. SECURITY CLASSIF. (OF THIS

PAGE) Unclassified

21. NO. OF PAGES

38

22. PRICE

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

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

What is the Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations?

State or local transportation or traffic safety departments should consider developing a policy or guide to support the 

installation of countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. This document provides guidance to 

agencies, including best practices for each step involved in selecting countermeasures. Agencies may use this guide 

to develop a customized policy or to supplement existing local decision-making guidelines. 

This document was produced by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) as part of the Safe Transportation for 

Every Pedestrian (STEP) program. STEP is part of the fourth round of Every Day Counts. STEP's purpose is to help 

transportation agencies address crashes by promoting countermeasures with known safety benefits at uncontrolled 

crossing locations. 

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations occur where sidewalks or designated walkways intersect a roadway at 

a location where no traffic control (i.e. traffic signal or STOP sign) is present. These common crossing types occur at 

intersections (where they may be marked or unmarked) and at non-intersection or midblock locations (where they must 

be marked as crossings). Overall, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations correspond to higher pedestrian crash 

rates, often due to inadequate pedestrian crossing accommodations. 

By focusing on uncontrolled crossing locations, local and State agencies can address a significant national safety 

problem and improve quality of life for pedestrians of all ages and abilities. STEP promotes the following six effective 

and lower-cost countermeasures that communities can deploy based on their specific needs: 

» Crosswalk visibility enhancements (i.e., high-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restriction on crosswalk 

approach, improved lighting, advance Yield Here To [Stop Here For] Pedestrians sign and yield [stop] line, InStreet Pedestrian Crossing sign, and curb extension).

» Raised crosswalk.

» Pedestrian refuge island.

» Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB).

» Road Diet.

» Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB).

These countermeasures and their safety benefits are described further in this guide. The guide also includes best 

practices for identifying locations and installing countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. 
iii

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Table of Contents

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

1. Collect Data and Engage the Public ............................................3

2. Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations ..............................8

3. Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues ......................................12

4. Select Countermeasure(s) ............................................................15

5. Consult Design and Installation Resources ................................23

6. Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes ..........................24

Glossary ...............................................................................................27

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian 

Safety ...................................................................................................29

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table ....................................32
iv

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

List of Figures

Figure 1. Process diagram for selecting countermeasures at 

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations. ................................... 1

Figure 2. Excerpt from "Walkability Checklist." ............................... 5

Figure 3. Example crossing inventory worksheet. ........................... 9

Figure 4. Crash cluster analysis map: Richmond, VA................... 11

Figure 5. Pedestrian collision summary. ......................................... 13

Figure 6. Rendering of a PHB. ......................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by 

roadway feature.................................................................................16

Table 2. Safety issues addressed per countermeasure. ...............17

Table 3. CRFs and CMFs by countermeasure. ................................32
v

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

List of Abbreviations

AADT annual average daily traffic

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and 

 Transportation Officials

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ADT average daily traffic

CMF crash modification factor

CRF crash reduction factor

EDC Every Day Counts

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association

GIS geographic information system

HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program

HSP Highway Safety Plan

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon

RRFB Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon

RSA Road Safety Audit

SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan

STBG Surface Transportation Block Grant

STEP Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian

TZD Toward Zero Deaths

VZ Vision Zero
1

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Introduction

Introduction

Pedestrians are among the most vulnerable 

road users, accounting for approximately 16 

percent of all roadway fatalities nationally in 

2016, per the Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

(FARS).1

 Pedestrians are especially vulnerable 

at non-intersection locations, where 72 percent 

of pedestrian fatalities occur.1

This guide addresses safety issues at 

uncontrolled pedestrian crossing locations, 

which occur where sidewalks or designated 

walkways intersect a roadway at a location 

where no traffic control (i.e., traffic signal 

or STOP sign) is present. These common 

crossing types occur at intersections (where 

they may be marked or unmarked) and 

at non-intersection or midblock locations 

(where they must be marked as crossings). 

Overall, uncontrolled pedestrian crossing 

locations correspond to higher pedestrian 

crash rates than controlled locations, often 

due to inadequate pedestrian crossing 

accommodations.

How to Use this Guide

The guide includes steps to assist an agency 

in selecting appropriate countermeasures 

to help improve pedestrian safety, as 

illustrated in Figure 1. An agency that has 

an established process for identifying 

priority locations for pedestrian safety 

improvements should review the guidance 

in Steps 3 through 6. This information is most 

important for selecting pedestrian crossing 

countermeasures. An agency that is at 

the beginning stages of identifying priority 

locations should consult each of the steps 

described in this guide.

1

NHSTA, “FARS Data Query: 2016 Data.” Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Encyclopedia. (2017). https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov//QueryTool/QuerySection/

SelectYear.aspx

Figure 1. Process diagram for selecting 

countermeasures at uncontrolled pedestrian 

crossing locations.
2

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Introduction

Following the process in the guide results 

in possible countermeasure options based 

on road conditions, crash causes, and 

pedestrian safety issues. The guide provides 

two reference tables to help identify 

countermeasure options. Table 1 identifies 

countermeasures by roadway conditions 

such as vehicle speed limit, annual average 

daily traffic (AADT), and number of travel 

lanes. Table 2 helps further pinpoint the most 

appropriate countermeasures by common 

safety concerns such as failure to yield or 

excessive vehicle speeds. The guide does 

not include specific recommendations for 

countermeasures based on all criteria in 

design and reference manuals, such as 

actual speeds and pedestrian volumes. 

The agency should reference the Manual 

on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), 

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) design 

guidelines, and State and local practices 

when selecting one or more specific 

countermeasures. The guide is followed by 

appendices including reference material for 

a local agency resolution and a summary of 

research cited for crash modification factors 

(CMFs). 

The agency should note additional 

considerations for the application of this 

guide, such as costs to design, install, and 

maintain the treatments. The agency should 

apply engineering judgment and conduct 

field investigations to confirm data and 

observe driver and pedestrian behaviors 

when selecting countermeasures. 

Building a safe and connected pedestrian 

network requires consideration of topics 

beyond what is included in this guide. 

This guide does not include methods for 

prioritizing sidewalk improvements, but 

agencies should consider giving special 

attention to connecting the pedestrian 

network with sidewalks, walkways, paved 

shoulders, and trails and paths. The 

ActiveTrans Priority Tool was created through 

the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program and can provide agencies with 

automated resources to prioritize pedestrian 

and bicycle improvements. 

Pedestrian crossings in or near school zones 

are not specifically addressed in this guide, 

as these crossings may be subject to other 

guidance or other considerations. Agencies 

may refer to the "Safe Routes to School 

Briefing Sheets: School Area Traffic Control"

produced by the Institute of Transportation 

Engineers (ITE) for guidance on improving 

pedestrian crossings near schools. 

This guide does not describe pedestrian 

crossing requirements per the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA), although ADA 

requirements should be addressed as part 

of any pedestrian crossing improvements 

project. For more information about ADA 

accessibility requirements, the agency 

should consult the US Access Board's 1991 

ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), the 

2010 Standards for Accessible Design, and 

the 2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for 

Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way 

(proposed PROWAG).
Collect Data and Engage the Public 3

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

This section describes optional methods for describing existing pedestrian safety trends and engaging stakeholders.

The following are important considerations for this step in the process of selecting countermeasures: 

» Review existing plans for safety statistics and locations previously identified for safety improvements. 

» Develop a resolution or policy statement in support of improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations. 

» If a formal process is preferred, initiate a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan to engage the community and identify 

priority locations. 

» If a less formal process is preferred, document public comments previously received or conduct a walkability audit 

to identify locations generally considered as less safe for pedestrians crossing.

Collect Pedestrian Crash and 

Safety Data 

Crash reports completed by law 

enforcement agencies may include 

information about driver and pedestrian 

actions, as well as environmental conditions 

when and where the crash occurred. These 

data are helpful to understand safety issues 

in the area. Crash data may be geocoded 

and mapped. The agency can collect crash 

maps, request crash reports (as needed), 

and contact public health officials for other 

pedestrian injury data. 

Review Existing Traffic Safety Plans

The Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) 

is a statewide-coordinated, data-driven 

safety plan that provides a comprehensive 

framework for reducing highway fatalities 

and serious injuries on all public roads. 

States are required to update the SHSP at 

least once every five years. The SHSP may 

include an emphasis area and strategies 

for improving pedestrian safety. The agency 

should review the SHSP for pedestrian crash 

statistics and strategies for pedestrian safety 

improvements.

The SHSP informs the State's Highway Safety 

Improvement Program (HSIP). The HSIP is a 

program of highway safety improvement 

1

Collect Data and 

Engage the Public
4

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

projects, activities, plans and reports. HSIP 

projects are selected through a data-driven 

approach and can include pedestrian 

crash countermeasures and intersection 

improvements. Some States set aside HSIP 

funding for pedestrian safety improvements, 

while other States use a common scoring 

process to consider safety projects for all 

travel modes. The agency should identify 

and understand pedestrian safety projects 

in the current HSIP, and consider how 

pedestrian safety projects are identified 

for potential funding and implementation. 

The Safety Performance Management 

Measures Final Rule (23 CFR 490) establishes 

requirements that support the HSIP, 

including a measure for the number of 

non-motorized fatalities and non-motorized 

serious injuries. This performance measure 

includes both pedestrians and bicyclists. 

The State’s Highway Safety Plan (HSP) 

must also be coordinated with the SHSP. 

The HSP is an annual strategy submitted 

by the State’s Governor’s Highway Safety 

Office to the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA). The HSP focuses on 

countermeasures that address driver and 

non-motorized behavior, and it provides 

an investment plan for activities such as 

law enforcement operations and public 

education programs. The HSP includes 

performance measures established by 

NHTSA and the Governors Highway Safety 

Association (GHSA), including one for 

pedestrian fatalities. Pedestrian safety 

initiatives are eligible for funding through the 

HSP. The agency should research pedestrian 

safety programs recommended in the HSP 

and consider how pedestrian crossing 

treatments can support the performance 

standards described in the HSP.

Evaluate Pedestrian 

Accommodation and Traffic 

Safety Policies 

The agency may have a policy or guidance 

for how pedestrian improvements are 

incorporated into other roadway projects, 

such as a Complete Streets policy. The 

policy explains the process for integrating 

sidewalks and crossing treatments into 

routine street maintenance activities and 

large-scale highway projects. The agency 

should examine the linkages between 

Complete Streets and pedestrian safety 

and consider improvements to the process 

to better integrate pedestrian crossing 

improvements into roadway projects. 

The agency may have adopted a policy 

for eliminating traffic-related fatalities, such 

as a Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths 

initiative. The programs focus on eliminating 

or significantly reducing traffic fatalities and 

prioritize strategies for the most vulnerable 

roadway users, such as pedestrians. These 

programs may summarize how all agency 

departments can improve pedestrian and 

traffic safety, and may include metrics that 

establish the need for safety at uncontrolled 

pedestrian crossings. 

Review Pedestrian Master Plans 

for Proposed Projects

Another approach to identify pedestrian 

issues is to review existing local or regional 

plans, particularly those with a focus on 

pedestrians, for potential locations for 

safety projects and to identify needed 

countermeasures. A State or local 

pedestrian master plan may include 

recommendations for pedestrian 

safety projects, identified infrastructure 

deficiencies, and/or documentation 
5

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

about safety concerns. This step leverages 

prior analyses and helps to identify 

countermeasures that that the agency is 

already considering.

Initiate a Pedestrian Safety Action 

Plan (PSAP)

Agency leaders and community stakeholders 

can begin a formal process to identify priority 

locations and key strategies for improving 

pedestrian safety. The agency may initiate a 

PSAP to increase community awareness and 

support for improving pedestrian safety. A 

PSAP considers the input of stakeholders from 

multiple disciplines and uses data analysis 

to identify potential locations for safety 

improvement.

Document Informal Public 

Comments 

The agency can identify locations of 

significance within a jurisdiction by 

collecting concerns and requests from 

community partners. Agencies should set 

up a process for receiving, tracking, and 

responding to input from residents and 

visitors. Many local governments respond 

with traffic calming request applications 

or online forms for residents with concerns 

about pedestrian safety on high-speed 

arterials or collector streets. Agencies may 

also consider forming a committee or work 

group devoted to considering pedestrian 

safety and mobility, such as a pedestrian 

advisory committee. This type of group can 

collect input from stakeholders and present 

their concerns to agency staff or decisionmakers.

Conduct a Walkability Audit 

Community leaders and neighbors can 

conduct a walkability audit at priority 

locations or corridors to identify deficiencies 

in the pedestrian network at a small area 

or neighborhood scale. This is an informal 

method for engaging stakeholders and 

raising awareness about pedestrian safety. 

Leaders can organize an event and ask 

participants to follow a simple checklist 

to assess neighborhood streets. Figure 2 

shows an excerpt from a sample "walkability 

checklist" that agencies may use to conduct 

a walkability audit.

Figure 2. Excerpt from "Walkability Checklist."

Source: Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. Created in collaboration with FHWA, NHTSA, National Center for Safe 

Routes to School, and United States Environmental Protection Agency.
6

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

RESOURCES

NHTSA Pedestrian Safety Information

NHTSA publishes annual reports summarizing 

the latest pedestrian fatality statistics. These 

statistics are based on FARS and the reports 

describe pedestrian fatality trends per different 

socioeconomic groups and for each State. 

Smart Growth America – National Complete 

Streets Coalition

Smart Growth America, a non-governmental 

advocacy organization, supports the National 

Complete Streets Coalition. This organization 

provides resources to support the development and 

implementation of Complete Streets policies. These 

policies encourage pedestrian mobility and safety 

by promoting street design that accommodates 

controlled and uncontrolled crossings. For example, 

the Massachusetts Department of Transportation 

Complete Streets program assists local 

governments developing Complete Streets policies 

and implementation plans. 

FHWA State SHSP Resources

The FHWA Office of Safety posts a link to each 

State’s current SHSP. This website also lists 

noteworthy practices. Many SHSP plans provide 

an emphasis on pedestrians and contain goals for 

reducing traffic fatalities and injuries. 

The Ohio DOT 2015 SHSP has a pedestrian 

emphasis area that seeks to reduce fatalities 

and serious injuries through six strategies 

that include data collection, institutionalizing 

pedestrian accommodations, implementing proven 

countermeasures, and promoting law enforcement.

FHWA HSIP Resources

The HSIP includes the projects selected for 

implementation, an evaluation of past projects, 

and an annual status report. Projects can include 

pedestrian safety improvement programs and 

projects. For example, the 2016 Oregon HSIP 

Annual Report details how the its All Roads 

Transportation Safety Program sets aside funding to 

address systemic pedestrian crash locations.

State HSP Documents

NHTSA posts the States’ current HSP outlining 

non-infrastructure strategies for improving 

roadway safety. A State HSP is likely to contain a 

pedestrian fatality and injury reduction goal, an 

associated performance measure, and describe 

non-infrastructure initiatives like enforcement and 

education programs. For example, Colorado DOT's 

2017 HSP (called the 2017 Integrated Safety Plan) 

supports the Denver Police Department’s “Decoy 

Pedestrian Program” to enforce driver yielding 

compliance at high-crash pedestrian crossings.

Vision Zero Network

This collaborative website posts case studies 

and tracks cities who are implementing Vision 

Zero plans or goals. The Vision Zero Network 

website also notes best practices by agencies 

who are working to eliminate traffic fatalities 

and serious injuries. Vision Zero goals are 

accompanied by policies, strategies, and target 

dates. For example, Columbia, Missouri’s Vision 

Zero Action Plan contains an outreach campaign 

to educate pedestrians and drivers on new and 

potentially confusing infrastructure improvements 

like pedestrian hybrid beacons and enhanced 

pedestrian crosswalks.
7

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Collect Data and Engage the Public

FHWA How to Develop a Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Safety Action Plan (2017) 

This document explains the process of developing 

pedestrian and bicycle safety action plans. The 

sources of data required for these plans may include 

police reports, roadway and intersection conditions, 

field visits of crash sites. For example, New Jersey’s 

PSAP identified how its infrastructure prioritization 

programs could be revised to recognize locations 

with systemic pedestrian crash risk. 

FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying 

Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts (2016) 

This resource focuses on flexibility and options 

for the design of pedestrian and bicycle networks 

designed to minimize crash conflicts, including 

case studies to illustrate various design treatments. 

Walkability Checklist

This tool can be used by community leaders 

during a walkability audit to evaluate pedestrian 

infrastructure and traffic behavior.
Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations 8

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

This section describes how the agency can document field conditions (such as roadway characteristics) necessary for 

prioritizing locations and selecting countermeasures. The following are important considerations for this step: 

» Create a worksheet or checklist of roadway characteristics to record in the field (see Figure 3). 

» Document pedestrian volumes and driver behavior, especially where pedestrians are frequently expected such as at 

bus stop locations and near schools. 

» Classify pedestrian crossings as either uncontrolled or controlled locations. 

» Analyze data and create maps to show priority locations for pedestrian improvements.

Inventory Roadway Characteristics

The process of collecting roadway 

characteristics includes compiling 

geospatial data to create base maps 

for each of the priority sites. Roadway 

conditions are key criteria for selecting 

countermeasures. The agency may 

document and map the following roadway 

characteristics for priority sites (see Glossary 

for more information): 

» Speeds, including posted speed limits and 

actual speeds (i.e., 85th percentile speeds).

» Number of travel lanes for each approach.

» Center turn lanes, medians, or refuge islands.

» Intersection turn lanes. 

» Vehicle queue lengths at intersections.

» Width of roadway, from curb to curb.

» Traffic volumes (AADT or ADT).

» Large truck traffic volumes or large trucks 

as a percentage of total traffic. 

» On-street parking, alignment, and marked 

or signed restrictions. 

2

Inventory Conditions 

and Prioritize Locations
9

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Figure 3. Example crossing inventory worksheet.

Source: City of Boulder, Pedestrian Crossing Treatment Installation Guidelines (2011).
10

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Inventory Pedestrian Crossings 

and Observed Traffic Behavior

The agency can also document pedestrian 

crossing conditions. Agency staff can visit 

the sites and record the following crossing 

site features: 

» Crosswalk markings, presence, and types.

» Crosswalk distance (in feet) and crossing 

phase duration (in seconds).

» Signage, such as advance, crosswalk, and 

in-street.

» Traffic control devices and signals, such 

as pedestrian crossing signal, pedestrian 

signal detector, STOP sign, RRFB, and PHB.

» Signal phasing and restrictions, such 

as Leading Pedestrian Interval, split 

or concurrent phasing type, and turn 

restrictions.

» Vertical elements, such as refuge island or 

raised crosswalk.

» Horizontal elements, such as curb 

extensions, narrowed curb radii, Road Diet, 

or lane reconfiguration.

» Accessibility features, such as curb ramps, 

truncated domes, and accessible signal 

push buttons. 

» Lighting and visibility enhancements, such 

as overhead lighting.

» Pedestrian volumes, including transit 

boarding volumes from nearby stops. 

» Pedestrian crossing behaviors near 

important activity centers such as transit 

stops, schools, and in downtown districts.

» Driver behaviors at crosswalks and 

intersections.

» Sight distance and visual clearance of 

crossing.

Classify Pedestrian Crossings as 

Controlled or Uncontrolled

In addition to collecting inventory information 

about the priority sites, it is important that the 

agency categorize each crossing as either 

controlled or uncontrolled. Uncontrolled 

pedestrian crossing locations occur where 

sidewalks or designated walkways intersect 

a roadway at a location where no traffic 

control (i.e., traffic signal or STOP sign) is 

present. These common crossing types occur 

at intersections (where they may be marked 

or unmarked) and at non-intersection or 

midblock locations (where they must be 

marked as crossings). This guide describes 

countermeasures applicable to uncontrolled 

crossings. Some of these countermeasures 

can also be used for controlled crossings, 

and the agency should consult other 

guidance for specific implementation 

criteria at those sites.

Screen the Network for HighCrash or High-Risk Locations

By following a data-driven approach, the 

agency can readily explain and defend 

how it selected priority sites for improvement. 

An agency can study, or screen, the safety 

conditions for the road network within its 

jurisdiction. The screening process uses 

geo-coded pedestrian crash data and 

other information to identify different types 

of locations. Network screening may take 

the form of spot safety or systemic safety 

analysis. Spot safety analysis is based on 

crash history at individual locations and 

identified high-crash locations. The systemic 

approach analyzes crash history on an 

aggregate basis to identify roadways that 

have high-crash experience, as well as 

high-risk characteristics at other sites before 

crashes occur, so countermeasures can be 

selected to address these characteristics. 
11

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Inventory Conditions and Prioritize Locations

Analyze “Hot Spots” or Crash Cluster 

Locations

Spot safety analysis involves mapping 

the individual locations of crashes over a 

time period, preferably at least 5 years for 

pedestrian crash data. Mapping these 

crashes on a geographic information system 

(GIS) helps to visually reveal clusters, or “hot 

spots,” of pedestrian crashes. Similarly, using 

the spot analysis approach may also reveal 

corridors or areas where pedestrian crashes 

tend to cluster. Grouping the clusters of 

crashes identified in the spot location 

process can show areas of potential 

pedestrian improvements. These areas 

may be corridors, roadways that share 

roadway design features, and/or areas of 

a similar land use. Figure 4 shows a map of 

pedestrian crash locations in an area.

Develop a Systemic Analysis Approach

Many areas may have low pedestrian 

crash rates, but still have a high risk for 

pedestrian crashes. The agency can 

identify these sites based on roadway 

characteristics combined with land use 

features of the area. The agency may select 

countermeasures to address these high-risk 

factors before pedestrian crashes occur. 

The systemic analysis can cover different 

geographies; an agency may choose to 

analyze for an area of interest or the entire 

jurisdiction. Systemic analysis considers 

factors such as inadequate roadway 

design and traffic control devices, lighting 

conditions, vehicle speeds, and nearby 

pedestrian destinations. Combinations of 

these factors help identify countermeasures 

to address and prevent pedestrian crashes.

Figure 4. Crash cluster analysis map: Richmond, VA.

Source: Virginia Department of Transportation (2017).
Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues 12

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes methods for summarizing pedestrian crash types and observed traffic safety issues. This 

information is important for selecting countermeasures. The following are important considerations for this step:

» Diagram crashes according to information included on crash reports (see Figure 5 for a sample diagram).

» Review the crash types described by the Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE). 

» Conduct a pedestrian Road Safety Audit (RSA) to formally engage representatives from various departments and 

interest groups. 

» Lead an informal site visit to engage stakeholders and describe conditions observed in the field.

Diagram Crash Reports 

Crash diagrams are created to graphically 

illustrate crash data associated with a given 

site. Each crash is plotted on a schematic 

of the site at the approximate location 

where the crash occurred. Icons are used 

to represent crash types so that patterns 

are identifiable. Spatial analysis tools like 

GIS can also enhance the analysis. Crash 

diagrams are sometimes plotted on aerial 

imagery and cross referenced with a 

tabular listing of the associated crash data 

so that agency staff can easily access key 

information. Crash diagrams are useful 

when there are many crashes associated 

with a site. An agency may not have 

sufficient pedestrian crash history to reveal 

crash patterns, but the absence of crash 

data does not necessarily mean a safety 

problem does not exist. In these cases, an 

agency should consider systemic analysis.

Identify Crash Factors 

Whether an agency is assembling the crash 

diagrams or simply conducting an exercise 

to identify potential factors for pedestrian 

crashes in their jurisdiction, these factors 

can be considered: 

» Vehicle speed.

» Compliance with regulations and traffic 

devices.

» Pedestrian crossing behaviors.

» Built environment or area type.

3

Analyze Crash Types 

and Safety Issues
13

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues

» Intersection presence and types of traffic 

control devices.

» Pedestrian crossing distance.

» Time of day/day of week/seasonal factors. 

» Alcohol involvement by pedestrians or 

drivers.

» Demographics.

» Special populations, such as school-aged 

children, older adults, and persons with 

disabilities.

» Presence of transit stops.

Conduct a Road Safety Audit (RSA)

An RSA is the formal safety performance 

examination of an existing or future 

road or intersection by an independent, 

multidisciplinary team. It qualitatively estimates 

and reports on potential road safety issues 

and identifies opportunities for improvements 

in safety for all road users. An RSA considers 

all users of the roadway and human factors 

and generates a formal report and response 

upon its conclusion. The agency can use 

the field conditions inventory and crash 

type summary during the RSA process. RSAs 

typically produce multiple planning-level 

countermeasure recommendations for the 

study corridor or area. 

Figure 5. Pedestrian collision summary.

Source: City of Phoenix, AZ. 2015 Pedestrian Collision Summary (2015). 
14

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Analyze Crash Types and Safety Issues

Like traditional RSAs, pedestrian RSAs are 

performed by a multidisciplinary team of 

experts or agency representatives, use 

structured prompt lists, and consider the 

surrounding socioeconomic and land use 

context. The materials for a pedestrian 

RSA provide more detail on pedestrian 

safety issues and examine elements such 

as signage, obstructions, signals, bus stop 

locations, drainage, and lighting. These 

tools can help identify possible deficiencies 

in the pedestrian network and potential 

locations for further investigation.

Lead an Informal Site Visit 

An alternative to a formal RSA is an onsite evaluation of pedestrian conditions 

including representatives from multiple 

agency departments and stakeholder 

interest groups. An informal on-site 

evaluation can collect information about 

pedestrian crossings and traffic operations 

at the neighborhood or area-wide scale. 

Law enforcement, public health, community 

groups, neighborhood residents, street 

or transportation departments, planning, 

emergency response, schools, and public 

transportation agencies can be involved in 

the process. The findings from this informal 

evaluation should be documented and 

shared with participants. 

RESOURCES

FHWA Model Road Safety Audit Policy (2014) 

This resource outlines the steps typically taken to 

conduct an RSA and the roles of the stakeholders. 

Identifying safety issues is an element of the RSA 

that is accompanied by suggestions on how to 

enhance the specific road’s safety.

Pedestrian RSA Guidelines and Prompt Lists

(2007)

This resource complements practices for RSAs 

with additional guidance and a field manual for a 

pedestrian-focused RSA. An RSA team will use the 

knowledge of a diverse team, analysis of crash data, 

and a site visit to identify pedestrian safety issues.

Pedestrian RSA Case Studies (2009)

This website provides links to several examples of 

RSAs focused on identifying pedestrian safety risks 

and improvement strategies. For example, the City 

of Tucson, Arizona conducted an RSA of roadways 

with PHBs to improve the countermeasures’ visibility 

and usability. 

PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Crash Typing

PEDSAFE provides definitions for 12 key pedestrian 

crash types identified by the software package, the 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT). 

PBCAT is still used by many agencies but may not be 

compatible with some current operating systems. 
Select Countermeasure(s) 15

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section can help the agency select countermeasures based on information previously collected and assessed. 

The agency can use the following resources to select countermeasures: 

» First, reference Table 1 to compare roadway and vehicle speed characteristics to countermeasure options.

» Then, reference Table 2 to compare crash types and other observed safety issues to countermeasure options.

» Review Appendix B for more information about countermeasure CRFs and CMFs. 

Application of Countermeasures 

by Roadway Feature 

Table 1 includes a comprehensive 

matrix and list of STEP pedestrian crash 

countermeasures suggested for application 

at uncontrolled crossing locations 

per roadway and traffic features. The 

countermeasures are assigned to specific 

matrix cells based on safety research, 

best practices, and established national 

guidelines. When a pedestrian crossing is 

established, the agency should review the 

countermeasure options in the cells before 

selecting the optimal group of crossing 

treatments. The agency should consider 

the previously obtained characteristics 

such as pedestrian volume, operational 

speeds, land use context, and other site 

features when selecting countermeasures. 

The agency should also reference the 

MUTCD and other national, State, and local 

guidelines when making the final selection 

of countermeasures.

For example, the agency may evaluate a 

5-lane road with no raised median, an AADT 

of 12,000, and a 35 mph posted speed 

limit. The matrix recommends the agency 

strongly consider high-visibility crosswalks, 

adequate lighting, and parking restrictions 

on the approaches. In addition, the agency 

should strongly consider adding advance 

Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians 

signs and yield (stop) lines, pedestrian 

refuge islands, and PHBs. Other candidate 

treatments include implementing a Road 

Diet along the corridor and adding curb 

extensions.

4

Select Countermeasure(s)
16

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Table 1 provides initial countermeasure 

options for various roadway conditions. Each 

matrix cell indicates possibilities that may 

be appropriate for designated pedestrian 

crossings. Not all of the countermeasures 

listed in the matrix cell should necessarily be 

installed at a crossing. 

For multi-lane roadway crossings with 

vehicle AADTs exceeding 10,000, a marked 

crosswalk alone is typically insufficient 

(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, more 

substantial crossing improvements (such as 

the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB) are also 

needed to prevent an increase in pedestrian 

crash potential.

Roadway Configuration

Posted Speed Limit and AADT

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

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

2 lanes

(1 lane in each direction)

1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

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

7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9

3 lanes with raised median

(1 lane in each direction)

1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

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

7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9

3 lanes w/o raised median

(1 lane in each direction with a 

two-way left-turn lane)

1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

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

7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9

4+ lanes with raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9

4+ lanes w/o raised median

(2 or more lanes in each direction)

1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3

5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6

7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9

Given the set of conditions in a cell, 

 # Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate 

 treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location.

 Signifies that the countermeasure should always be 

 considered, but not mandated or required, based upon 

 engineering judgment at a marked uncontrolled 

 crossing location.

 Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements should 

 always occur in conjunction with other identified 

 countermeasures.*

The absence of a number signifies that the countermeasure 

is generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions may 

be considered following engineering judgment.

 1 High-visibility crosswalk markings, parking restrictions on 

 crosswalk approach, adequate nighttime lighting levels, 

 and crossing warning signs 

 2 Raised crosswalk

 3 Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) Pedestrians sign 

 and yield (stop) line

 4 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing sign

 5 Curb extension

 6 Pedestrian refuge island

 7 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB)**

 8 Road Diet

 9 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)**

Table 1. Application of pedestrian crash countermeasures by roadway feature.

*Refer to Chapter 4, 'Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures,' for more information about using multiple countermeasures.

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

This table was developed using information from: Zegeer, C.V., J.R. Stewart, H.H. Huang, P.A. Lagerwey, J. Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell. (2005). Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: Final report and recommended guidelines. FHWA, No. FHWA-HRT-04-100, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2009 Edition. 

(revised 2012). Chapter 4F, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. FHWA, Washington, D.C.; FHWA. Crash Modification Factors (CMF) Clearinghouse. http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/; FHWA. Pedestrian 

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

C. Lyon, E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. (2017). NCHRP Report 841: Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, D.C.; Thomas, Thirsk, and Zegeer. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

D.C.; and personal interviews with selected pedestrian safety practitioners.
17

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Safety Issues Addressed per 

Countermeasure

The results of the crash analysis, road safety 

audit, and/or stakeholder input provide 

the agency with a better understanding 

of the risk factors at uncontrolled crossing 

locations. The countermeasures listed 

in this guide can improve the visibility of 

crossing locations and reduce crashes, 

and they each address at least one 

additional safety concern associated with 

a higher risk of collision and/or severe 

injury. These additional safety issues include 

the following: excessive vehicle speed, 

inadequate conspicuity/visibility, drivers not 

yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, and 

insufficient separation from traffic. 

Table 2 shows the specific safety issues that 

each countermeasure may address. For 

example, the addition of PHBs has been 

consistently shown to improve motorist 

yielding by 90 percent or greater, when 

compared with no traffic control or warning 

type devices. 

Table 2. Safety issues addressed per countermeasure.

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

implemented at a location as part of crosswalk visibility enhancements.
18

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Using Table 1 and Table 2 to Select Countermeasures

Table 1 provides initial countermeasure 

options for various roadway conditions. 

Each matrix cell indicates possibilities 

that may be appropriate for 

designated pedestrian crossings. 

Not all of the countermeasures listed 

in the matrix cell should necessarily 

be installed at a crossing. Agency 

officials should also review safety issues 

referenced in Table 2, the surrounding 

land development context, pedestrian 

travel patterns, countermeasure 

effectiveness, and costs when 

considering what countermeasure(s) 

are best suited for the crossing. 

A marked crosswalk is useful to show 

pedestrians and drivers preferred 

crossing locations. However, for multilane roadway crossings where vehicle 

AADTs are in excess of 10,000, a marked 

crosswalk alone is typically not sufficient 

(Zegeer, 2005). Under such conditions, 

more substantial crossing improvements 

are also needed to prevent an increase 

in pedestrian crash potential. Examples 

of more substantial treatments include 

the refuge island, PHB, and RRFB. Refer 

to the symbols used in Table 1 for 

when a marked crosswalk should be 

paired with one or more of the other 

countermeasures described. 

To further increase visibility of 

pedestrian crossings, agencies often 

integrate multiple countermeasures. 

For example, the Pedestrian Hybrid 

Beacon is often installed in conjunction 

with advance stop markings and 

signs. Also, Road Diets present 

opportunities for adding pedestrian 

refuge islands and curb extensions 

at key crossing locations. Agencies 

should consider roadway geometry and 

the MUTCD when integrating multiple 

countermeasures.

Countermeasure Descriptions

This subsection describes considerations 

for implementation of each of the 

countermeasures included in Tables 

1 and 2. The agency can review other 

guidance—such as the MUTCD, the AASHTO 

Pedestrian Guide, and/or agency policies 

and practices—to identify and select 

countermeasures for implementation. 

Crosswalk visibility enhancements

High-visibility crosswalks may include a 

variety of crosswalk striping designs, such 

as ladder, continental, or bar pairs. A 

high-visibility crosswalk is much easier for 

an approaching motorist to see than the 

traditional parallel lines. The agency should 

strongly consider providing high-visibility 

crosswalks at all established midblock 

pedestrian crossings. The high-visibility 

markings may be supplemented with the 

pedestrian crossing warning signs (sign 

W11-2 in the MUTCD) on each approach 

to the crosswalk. MUTCD Section 2C.50—

Non Vehicular Warning Signs and Section 

3B.18—Crosswalk Markings provide 

additional information.

The agency should also strongly consider 

implementing parking restrictions on the 

crosswalk approach at all established 
19

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

pedestrian crossings (both approaches) so 

there is adequate sight distance for motorists 

on the approaches to the crossings and 

ample sight distance for pedestrians 

attempting to cross. The minimum setback 

is 20 feet where speeds are 25 mph or less, 

and 30 feet between 26 mph and 35 mph. 

If this cannot be done, the curbs should 

be “bulbed out” to allow the pedestrian 

to see past the parked vehicle along the 

street. Adjacent bus stops should be placed 

downstream of the crosswalk and not on the 

crosswalk approach.

The agency should consider providing 

an appropriate level of lighting at 

all established pedestrian crossings. 

Consideration should be given to placing 

the lights 10 to 15 feet in advance of the 

crosswalk on both sides of the street and on 

both approaches to better light the front of 

the pedestrian and avoid silhouette lighting 

(where possible).

In-street Pedestrian Crossing sign

In-street signs are placed in the middle of 

the road at a crossing and are often used 

in conjunction with refuge islands. These 

signs may be appropriate on 2-lane or 

3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or 

less. On higher-speed, higher-volume, and/

or multilane roads, this treatment may not 

be as visually prominent; therefore, it may 

be less effective (drivers may not notice 

the signs in time to stop in advance of 

the crosswalk). For such roadways, more 

robust treatments will be needed. When 

making the choice to use these signs, the 

agency should consider making a plan 

and securing a funding source for the 

maintenance and prompt replacement of 

damaged signs. The MUTCD permits instreet pedestrian signs for installation on 

centerlines and along lane lines. MUTCD 

Section 2B.12—In-Street and Overhead 

Pedestrian Crossing Signs contains additional 

information about these signs.

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) 

Pedestrians sign and yield (stop) line

Advance Yield Here To (Stop Here For) 

Pedestrians signs are placed between 

30 and 50 feet in advance of the marked 

crosswalk along with the stop line or “shark’s 

teeth” yield line. This is a candidate treatment 

for any uncontrolled pedestrian crossing, 

and should be strongly considered for any 

established pedestrian crossing on roads with 

four or more lanes and/or roads with speed 

limits of 35 mph or greater. Stop Here For 

Pedestrians signs should only be used where 

the law specifically requires that a driver must 

stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. MUTCD 

Section 2B.11—Yield Here To Pedestrians Signs 

and Stop Here For Pedestrians Signs and 

Section 3B.16—Stop and Yield Lines contain 

additional information.

Curb extension

A curb extension or "bulbout" extends 

the sidewalk or curb line into the street or 

parking lane, thus reducing the street width 

and improving sight distance between the 

driver and pedestrian. A curb extension is a 

candidate treatment for any uncontrolled 

pedestrian crossing, particularly where 

parking lanes exist. Curb extensions should 

not extend into paths of travel for bicyclists.

Raised crosswalk

Raised crosswalks function as an extension 

of the sidewalk and allow a pedestrian 

to cross the street at a constant grade. A 

raised crosswalk is typically a candidate 

treatment on 2-lane or 3-lane roads with 

speed limits of 30 mph or less and AADTs 

below 9,000. Raised crossings are generally 
20

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

avoided on truck routes, emergency routes, 

and arterial streets. Drainage needs to 

be accommodated. See MUTCD Section 

3B.25—Speed Hump Markings for additional 

information about markings that can be 

used alongside raised crosswalks.

Pedestrian refuge island

A pedestrian island is typically constructed 

in the middle of a 2-way street and 

provides a place for pedestrians to stand 

and wait for motorists to stop or yield. This 

countermeasure is highly desirable for 

midblock pedestrian crossings on roads 

with four or more lanes, and should be 

considered for undivided crossings of 

four or more lanes with speed limits of 35 

mph or greater and/or AADTs of 9,000 

or greater. Median islands may also be 

a candidate treatment for uncontrolled 

pedestrian crossings on 3-lane or 2-lane 

roads, especially where the street is wide 

and/or where vehicle speed or volumes are 

moderate to high. Consideration should be 

given to creating a two-stage crossing with 

the island to encourage pedestrians to cross 

one direction of traffic at a time and look 

towards oncoming traffic before completing 

the second part of the crossing. The 

minimum pedestrian refuge island width is 

approximately 6 feet. MUTCD Section 3B.10—

Approach Markings for Obstructions, Section 

3B.18—Crosswalk Markings, and Section 

3B.23—Curb Markings provide additional 

information.

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)

A PHB head consists of two red lenses 

above a single yellow lens, and is used in 

conjunction with pedestrian signal heads 

installed at each end of a marked crosswalk. 

Figure 6 shows a rendering of a PHB. The PHB 

has been referred to as the High-Intensity 

Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK), but the 

MUTCD refers to this device as the PHB.

Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests in dark 

until a pedestrian activates it via pushbutton 

or other form of detection. When activated, 

the beacon displays a sequence of flashing 

and solid lights that control vehicular 

traffic while the pedestrian signal heads 

indicate the pedestrian walk interval and a 

pedestrian clearance interval.

The PHB should meet the installation 

guidelines—based on speed, pedestrian 

volume, vehicular volume, and crossing 

length—as provided in Section 4F.01 of the 

MUTCD (See Figure 4F-1 for speeds of 35 mph 

or less; Figure 4F-2 for speeds greater than 35 

mph). Research indicates that PHBs are most 

effective at roads with three or more lanes 

that have AADTs above 9,000. PHBs should 

be strongly considered for all midblock 

crossings where the roadway speed limits 

are equal to or greater than 40 mph. Refer 

to Table 1 for other conditions where PHBs 

should be strongly considered. It should be 

noted that the PHB and RRFB are not both 

installed at the same crossing location.

PHBs have also been installed successfully 

at intersections under certain conditions. 

Since the current MUTCD guidance is to 

locate PHBs at least 100 feet away from 

an intersection, engineering judgment/

engineering study must be carefully applied if 

considering an installation at an intersection.

Figure 6. Rendering of a PHB. 

Source: FHWA STEP Countermeasure Tech Sheets. 

(Note: Drawing not to scale.)
21

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

Road Diet

A road diet reconfigures the roadway. A 

frequently-implemented Road Diet involves 

converting a 4-lane, undivided roadway into 

a 3-lane roadway with a center turn lane. This 

is a candidate treatment for any undivided 

road with wide travel lanes or multiple lanes 

that can be narrowed or repurposed to 

improve pedestrian crossing safety. 

After conducting a traffic analysis to 

consider its feasibility, the agency may 

determine that a Road Diet is a good 

candidate for use on roads with four 

or more lanes and traffic volumes of 

approximately 20,000 or less. In some cases, 

agencies have successfully implemented 

Road Diets on roads with AADTs of up 

to 25,000. By reducing the width of the 

roadway, pedestrians benefit from shorter 

crossing distances and often bike lanes or 

streetscape features can be added. Road 

Diets are often effectively accomplished 

during pavement resurfacing. 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon 

(RRFB)

An RRFB is a pedestrian-actuated conspicuity 

enhancement 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 may be used to enhance the 

conspicuity of standard pedestrian 

and school crossing warning signs at 

uncontrolled marked crosswalks. 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 

RRFB's irregular flashing pattern pattern 

is unlit when not activated and can be 

activated manually by pedestrians using 

a push button or passively by a pedestrian 

detection system. This device is not currently 

included in the MUTCD, but FHWA has 

issued Interim Approval 21 (IA-21) for the use 

of the RRFB. State and local agencies must 

request and receive permission to use this 

interim approval before they can use the 

RRFB. IA-21 provides additional information 

about the conditions of use, including 

dimensions, placement, and flashing 

requirements. IA-21 does not provide 

guidance or criteria based on number of 

lanes, speed, or traffic volumes.

The RRFB is a treatment option at many 

types of established pedestrian crossings. 

Research indicates RRFBs can result in 

motorist yielding rates as high as 98 percent 

at marked crosswalks. However, yielding 

rates as low as 19 percent have also been 

noted. Compliance rates varied most per 

the city location, posted speed limit, crossing 

distance, and whether the road was oneor two-way.1

 RRFBs are particularly effective 

at multilane crossings with speed limits less 

than 40 mph. Consider the PHB instead 

of RRFBs for roadways with higher speeds. 

Table 1 provides specific conditions where 

practitioners should strongly consider the PHB 

instead of the RRFB.

1

Fitzpatrick, K., M. Brewer, R. Avelar, and T. Lindheimer. Will You Stop for Me? Roadway Design and Traffic Control Device Influences on Drivers Yielding to 

Pedestrians in a Crosswalk with a Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon. Report No. TTI-CTS-0010. Texas A&M Transportation Institute, College Station, Texas. June 

2016. https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/TTI-CTS-0010.pdf
22

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Select Countermeasure(s)

RESOURCES

PEDSAFE, Pedestrian Safety Guide and 

Countermeasure Selection System

This online tool includes links to research studies, 

crash reduction statistics, and case studies for 

nearly 70 pedestrian safety countermeasures. 

Its Countermeasure Selection Tool provides 

countermeasure recommendations for uncontrolled 

crossing locations based upon variables such as 

AADT, vehicle speed, and number of lanes. 

Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD)

This manual provides transportation engineers and 

planners with detailed guidance for the design 

and application of traffic control devices, including 

signage, roadway markings, and intersection controls. 

Refer to the specific sections of the MUTCD listed in 

the countermeasure descriptions and consult Statelevel supplements for additional information. 

FHWA Road Diet Desk Reference (2015) 

This resource includes sample policy, case studies, 

and design guidance for agencies and decisionmakers considering Road Diets. The benefits of Road 

Diets include reducing vehicle speeds, reducing 

number of lanes to cross, and allocating space for 

pedestrian refuge islands. 

Highway Safety Manual 

This manual provides detailed guidance for the 

collection, analysis, and evaluation of roadway 

crash data, as well as related CMFs and treatment 

selection guidance. 

FHWA Design Resource Index

This resource directs practitioners to the specific 

location of information about pedestrian and bicycle 

treatments or countermeasures, across various 

design guidelines published by organizations such as 

AASHTO, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and 

National Association of City Transportation Officials. 

Informational Brief: Treatments for Uncontrolled 

Marked Crosswalks (2017)

FHWA provided this information about optional 

treatments for uncontrolled pedestrian crossing 

locations. 

TCRP REPORT 112/NCHRP REPORT 562: Improving 

Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings (2006) 

This document recommends treatments to improve 

safety for pedestrians crossing high-volume, highspeed roadways at unsignalized intersections, 

with particular focus on roadways served by public 

transportation. 

NHTSA "A Primer for Highway Safety Professionals"

(2016)

This resource outlines a comprehensive approach 

to improving safety for bicyclists and pedestrians 

and offers a summary of the most frequently used 

engineering, enforcement, and education safety 

measures. The resource identifies how certain 

treatments may be placed in relation to other 

treatments, such as the coordinated installation of a 

pedestrian refuge island and lighting.

CMF Clearinghouse

The CMF Clearinghouse is an online database of 

countermeasures and corresponding CMFs. The 

database describes the confidence of the study that 

produced the CMF with an assigned “star quality 

rating.” The clearinghouse includes CMFs for most 

of the STEP countermeasures.

NCHRP Report 841: Development of CMFs for 

Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments

(2017)

This report describes the safety benefits and CMFs 

for four types of pedestrian crossing treatments—

rectangular rapid flashing beacons, PHBs, 

pedestrian refuge islands, and advance crosswalk 

signs and pavement markings. 

NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of Pedestrian 

Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016)

This is a compilation of existing practices regarding 

the selection and implementation of pedestrian 

crossing improvements, as well as a literature 

review of research on more than 25 pedestrian 

crossing treatments. 
Consult Design and Installation Resources 23

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section identifies additional resources that refine countermeasure options for priority sites. The following are 

important considerations for this step: 

» Consult the MUTCD for recommendations for signage and roadway markings for all countermeasures. 

» Review the MUTCD (Part 4) for more considerations, including pedestrian volumes and vehicle operating speeds, 

for the installation of PHBs. 

» Consult local and national design guidance for the preferred width and placement of these countermeasures. 

Review Agency Design Guidelines

The agency can review and, if needed, 

enhance local guidance for traffic engineers 

and roadway designers to follow when 

installing countermeasures. The agency’s 

roadway design manual can include details, 

such as design and installation guidance, 

for each of the countermeasure options. 

The agency may also consider creating 

additional warrant and threshold guidance 

for countermeasures such as the Road Diet, 

considering local conditions. 

Consult the MUTCD

The agency may focus on three parts of the 

MUTCD for additional considerations when 

installing countermeasures: 

» Part 2: Signs.

» Part 3: Markings.

» Part 4: Highway Traffic Signals (includes 

detailed guidance for installing Pedestrian 

Hybrid Beacons based on traffic speeds, 

traffic volumes, and pedestrian volumes).

RESOURCE 

AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, 1st Edition (2004)

This guide provides recommendations for the planning, design, and operation of accommodations for 

pedestrians on public rights-of-way. This guide also discusses the impact of land use and site design on 

pedestrian safety and connectivity.

5

Consult Design and 

Installation Resources
Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes 24

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

This section describes possible options for funding and implementation of the countermeasures described in this 

guide. The following are important considerations for this step: 

» Review the State's HSIP process for considering and funding pedestrian crossing countermeasures. 

» Review local traffic calming and land development policies for opportunities to install pedestrian crossing 

countermeasures.

» Consider the costs to design, install, and maintain selected countermeasures. 

» Collect usage and crash data for at least three years after countermeasures are installed at priority sites. 

» Continue to monitor priority sites not funded for countermeasure installation. 

» Provide information to the public about planned countermeasure projects. Information should address the safety 

benefits and possible impacts to traffic operations. 

Consider Funding Options 

A major consideration when selecting a safety 

project or program is identifying and securing 

the funding to design, construct, operate, 

and maintain the project or program. FHWA, 

NHTSA, and other Federal agencies distribute 

funding to States and other jurisdictions 

for transportation safety projects. If local 

funding is scarce, agencies may approach 

the State Departments of Transportation for 

safety improvement funding consideration. 

Some projects may require a local match to 

leverage State or Federal dollars. The agency 

may consider the following steps:

» Submit high-priority pedestrian crash 

locations as HSIP projects.

» Consider other State safety funding 

programs for low-cost pedestrian safety 

improvements.

» Address gaps in pedestrian 

accommodations through other State 

or Federal funding programs such as 

Transportation Alternatives Program, 

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, and 

Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG).

6

Identify Opportunities and 

Monitor Outcomes
25

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes

Identify Opportunities for 

Successful Implementation 

The agency can look beyond safety-focused 

funding programs to help implement 

countermeasures. By incorporating safety 

treatments into roadway maintenance 

or traffic operation projects, the agency 

can realize cost savings. For example, the 

agency should consider how resurfacing 

and operational projects may include 

countermeasures such as Road Diets and 

pedestrian crossing signal improvements. 

The agency can also engage the 

community prior to programing the project. 

The treatments are likely to affect traffic 

operations, and the public may respond 

negatively to the change without sufficient 

notice and education. The agency can 

develop public education materials 

describing the benefits and costs of the 

countermeasures. Law enforcement, 

pedestrian safety advocates, public health 

officials, and other community partners may 

be able to help distribute the materials. 

It is important for the agency to work 

with local partners to coordinate early 

in the process of designing or improving 

a roadway to identify opportunities for 

improved pedestrian crossing safety. If the 

agency has a Complete Streets policy in 

place, the policy describes how pedestrian 

crossing treatments and sidewalks are 

incorporated into roadway projects. 

Roadway project design should identify 

locations and countermeasure options for 

pedestrian crossings. Developing preliminary 

cost estimates early for these improvements 

will help local partners make decisions about 

funding for pedestrian crossing treatments. 

The agency can also work with land 

developers to incorporate pedestrian 

crossing treatments into site plans and 

connecting roadways. Land development 

policies provide an opportunity to integrate 

pedestrian and multimodal improvements, 

connectivity, and accommodations 

into site plans and nearby roadways. 

The agency can examine development 

policies or ordinances for requirements to 

install sidewalks and pedestrian crossing 

treatments.

Construct Improvements

The public may have questions about the 

improvements as construction activities 

begin. The agency should post information 

about the improvements and a timeline for 

construction to a public-facing website and 

consider issuing a press release about the 

project. The agency should also provide 

detailed information to neighbors and 

business owners impacted by construction 

activities about the project. Pedestrians will 

maintain access through the work zone area 

by way of temporary walkways, curb ramps, 

and traffic control signage. 

The agency may consider phasing in the 

improvements. For example, a refuge 

island can be implemented initially by 

pavement markings and flexible delineators 

in the center lane. The agency can later 

add a raised median and appropriate 

landscaping at the refuge island. 

Monitor Results of Implementation 

The agency should consider monitoring 

the impacts of countermeasures per 

defined performance measures. Specific 

performance measures can be outlined 

in plans, such as a PSAP. The PSAP may 
26

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Identify Opportunities and Monitor Outcomes

also list priority locations and proposed 

countermeasures. 

The first measure of success for a project or 

program is public support. States and local 

governments can prepare public information 

for countermeasures that are new to the 

community or may change traffic patterns. 

Public information about the projects may 

describe the crash history or risks noted 

at the site, as well as the benefits of the 

proposed countermeasure. 

States and local government can also 

collect and analyze crash and traffic data 

related to countermeasure sites for at least 3 

years following the installation of the project. 

This time allows for data to be collected to 

compare crash rates and severity with the 

same data collected before the installation. 

The agency should work with their State HSIP 

to evaluate projects by continuing to collect 

data, and it is essential that the treatment 

installation date be documented. In addition 

to the safety performance of the treatment, 

agency staff should consider assessing the 

durability and life cycle maintenance needs 

for in-service devices.

In addition to crash data, it is important 

to collect data on pedestrian volumes, 

traffic speeds, and interactions between 

pedestrians and drivers. Pedestrian volume 

data can help demonstrate the benefits 

of implementing safety countermeasures. 

Information about traffic speeds and 

behaviors also help confirm the effectiveness 

of installing these countermeasures. As 

more pedestrian crossing treatments are 

implemented, State and local agencies can 

use these data to research the effectiveness 

of countermeasures and best practices for 

installation. Evaluation also helps an agency 

demonstrate the value of the investment in 

countermeasures to community leaders and 

the public. 

RESOURCES

FHWA Federal-aid Program Administration

This website includes links to guidance for local and 

State governments administering federally-funded 

projects, such as those funded by HSIP or STBG.

FHWA Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Performance Measures (2016) 

This resource identifies a wide variety of potential 

metrics for setting goals, prioritizing projects and 

evaluating outcomes of bicycle and pedestrian plans, 

including plans for pedestrian safety improvements. 

Performance measures may include pedestrian 

levels of service or pedestrian fatality rates. 

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding 

Opportunities Summary (2016) 

This resource includes a matrix comparing eligibility 

of various federal transportation funding programs 

for different types of bicycle and pedestrian projects. 

NCHRP Report 803: Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans 

Priority Tool Guidebook (2015)

This resource includes an interactive tool and 

guidance to help agencies prioritize pedestrian 

and bicycle improvements, including safety 

projects, either as standalone or incidental to a 

roadway project. 
27

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Glossary

Glossary

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) 

The total volume of traffic passing a point 

or segment of a highway facility in both 

directions for one year divided by the 

number of days in the year. 

Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

The average 24-hour volume of traffic 

passing a point or segment of a highway in 

both directions.

Complete Streets 

Complete Streets are designed and 

operated to enable safe access for all users, 

including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, 

and transit riders of all ages and abilities. 

(Smart Growth America, National Complete 

Streets Coalition.)

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 

Modification Factors Clearinghouse.)

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 a curb 

line is bulbed out toward the middle of the 

roadway to narrow the width of the street. 

Curb extensions are sometimes called 

“neckdowns.”

Highway Safety Improvement Program 

(HSIP)

A Federal-aid program with the purpose 

to achieve a significant reduction in traffic 

fatalities and serious injuries on all public 

roads, including non-State-owned roads 

and roads on tribal land. The HSIP requires 

a data-driven, strategic approach to 

improving highway safety on all public roads 

with a focus on performance. (FHWA.)

High visibility crosswalk

A pedestrian crossing location marked 

by patterns such as zebra, ladder, or 

continental markings as described by the 

MUTCD. 

Marked crosswalk

A pedestrian crossing that is delineated by 

white crosswalk pavement markings. 

Parking restriction

Parking restriction can include the removal of 

parking space markings, installation of new 

“parking prohibition” pavement markings or 

curb paint, and signs. 
28

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Glossary

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 dark until a pedestrian activates it via 

pushbutton or other form of detection.

Raised crosswalk

Raised crosswalks are ramped speed tables 

spanning the entire width of the roadway, 

often placed at midblock crossing locations.

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.

Refuge island

A median with a refuge area that is 

intended to help protect pedestrians who 

are crossing the road. This countermeasure 

is sometimes referred to as a crossing island 

or pedestrian island.

Road Diet

A roadway reconfiguration resulting in a 

reduction in the number of travel lanes. 

The space gained by eliminating lanes 

is typically used for other uses and travel 

modes. (FHWA.)

Road Safety Audit (RSA)

A formal examination of an existing or future 

road or intersection by a multidisciplinary 

team. It qualitatively estimates and reports 

on potential road safety issues and identifies 

opportunities for improvements in safety for 

all road users. (FHWA.) 

Toward Zero Deaths (TZD)

TZD is a traffic safety framework that seeks 

to eliminate highway fatalities by engaging 

diverse safety partners and technology to 

address traffic safety culture. (See also: 

Vision Zero.)

Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing

An established pedestrian crossing that 

does not include a traffic signal, 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.

Vision Zero (VZ)

Similar to TZD, Vision Zero is a vision to 

eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries 

within the transportation system. VZ employs 

comprehensive strategies to address 

roadway design, traffic behavior, and law 

enforcement. 
29

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution 

Supporting Pedestrian Safety

Agency policies respond to a need or opportunity, such as pedestrian safety crash and 

fatality trends. A resolution may help decision-makers, including elected officials or appointed 

commissioners, better understand the need for pedestrian crash countermeasure policy or 

design guidance. 

The following is a list of possible elements for a local or Statewide resolution in support of a 

pedestrian crossing policy. These elements may be developed into “Whereas” statements 

or be included as explanatory text introducing the policy. The list of resolution elements is 

presented as four categories covering a spectrum of pedestrian safety issues. 
30

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

1. Example statistics that may 

raise awareness of pedestrian 

safety trends.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas the number of pedestrian 

crashes per year and the percent of 

pedestrian fatalities out of all traffic 

fatalities in [State] demonstrate the 

need for improved pedestrian safety at 

roadway crossings...”

» Percent pedestrian fatalities of total traffic 

fatalities.

» Number of total pedestrian crashes/

fatalities per year.

» Percent of pedestrian crashes occurring 

outside the intersection.

2. List of broad issues that 

agencies commonly consider 

when discussing pedestrian safety 

and crash countermeasures.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [Agency/State] recognizes 

that safety is a priority for all road users, 

and improvements to pedestrian safety 

often improve safety for all road users...”

» Safety is a priority for all road users.

» Crossings are essential to a complete 

network for pedestrian mobility. 

» Pedestrian safety is part of overall quality 

of life and improved public health. 

» Improvements to pedestrian safety often 

improve safety for all road users.

» Pedestrian countermeasures are genreally 

lower-cost treatments. 

» Many pedestrian crash countermeasures 

have been evaluated as highly effective. 
31

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix A: Framework for a Resolution Supporting Pedestrian Safety

3. List of example planning 

documents that frequently 

discuss Statewide pedestrian 

safety concerns and may include 

statistics or other compelling 

reasons for implementing 

pedestrian crossing treatments.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [State]'s Strategic Highway 

Safety Plan addresses pedestrian safety 

as an emphasis area...”

» State Strategic Highway Safety Plan 

includes pedestrian safety as an emphasis 

area.

» State Highway Safety Plan includes 

pedestrian safety programs or 

enforcement support.

» State Roadway Design Manual includes 

guidance for countermeasure design.

» Highway Safety Improvement Program 

includes safety performance targets for 

non-motorists.

4. List of Statewide opportunities 

for promoting, planning, and 

funding the construction of 

pedestrian crossing treatments.

SAMPLE LANGUAGE

“Whereas [Agency]'s Highway Safety 

Improvement Program includes 

specific funding for pedestrian crash 

countermeasures...”

» Highway Safety Improvement Program 

includes specific focus or funding for 

pedestrian crash countermeasures.

» Complete Streets Policy directs the 

inclusion of pedestrian accommodations 

as part of other transportation projects. 

» Vision Zero or Towards Zero Deaths 

initiative strives to reduce or eliminate 

all traffic-related fatalities, including 

pedestrians.
32

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table

Table 3. CRFs and CMFs by countermeasure.

Countermeasure CRF CMF Basis Reference

Crosswalk visibility enhancement1 — — — —

Advance STOP/YIELD signs and 

markings 25% 0.75 Pedestrian crashes2 Zegeer, et. al. 2017

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

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

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

Parking restriction on crosswalk 

approach 30% 0.70 Pedestrian crashes Gan, et. al., 2005

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

Curb extension UNK UNK N/A N/A

Raised crosswalk (speed tables) 45% 0.55 Pedestrian crashes Elvik, et. al., 2004 30% 0.70 Vehicle crashes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

1. Zegeer, C., R. Srinivasan, B. Lan, D. Carter, S. Smith, 

C. Sundstrom, N.J. Thirsk, J. Zegeer, C. Lyon, 

E. Ferguson, and R. Van Houten. NCHRP Report 

841: Development of Crash Modification Factors 

for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. 

NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, 

DC, 2017. 

2. Harkey, D.L., R. Srinivasan, J. Baek, F. Council, K. 

Eccles, N. Lefler, F. Gross, B. Persaud, C. Lyon, 

E. Hauer, and J. Bonneson. NCHRP Report 617: 

Accident Modification Factors for Traffic Engineering 

and ITS Improvements. NCHRP, Transportation 

Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008.
33

Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Appendix B: CRF and CMF Summary Table

3. Chen, L., C. Chen, R. Ewing, C.E. McKnight, R. 

Srinivasan, and M. Roe. “Safety Countermeasures 

and Crash Reduction in New York City—Experience 

and Lessons Learned." Accident Analysis and 

Prevention, 2012.

4. Feldman, M., J. Manzi, and M. Mitman. "An 

Empirical Bayesian Evaluation of the Safety Effects 

of High-Visibility School (Yellow) Crosswalks in San 

Francisco, California." Transportation Research 

Record: Journal of the Transportation Research 

Board, No. 2198, Transportation Research Board, 

Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 8-14.

5. Gan, A., J. Shen, and A. Rodriguez. "Update of Florida 

Crash Reduction Factors and Countermeasures 

to Improve the Development of District Safety 

Improvement Projects." Final report. Florida 

Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL, 2005.

6. Elvik, R., P. Christensen, and A. Amundsen. "Speed 

and Road Accidents An Evaluation of the Power 

Model." Transportokonomisk Institutt, Oslo, Norway, 

2004.

7. Pawlovich, M.D., W. Li, A. Carriquiry, and T. Welch. 

"Iowa's Experience with Road Diet Measures—Use 

of Bayesian Approach to Assess Impacts on Crash 

Frequencies and Crash Rates." Transportation 

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 

Research Board, No. 1953, Transportation Research 

Board, Washington, D.C., 2006.

8. Persaud, B., B. Lan, C. Lyon, and R. Bhim. 

"Comparison of empirical Bayes and full Bayes 

approaches for before–after road safety evaluations." 

Accident Analysis & Prevention, Volume 42, Issue 1, 

2010, pp. 38-43.
FHWA-SA-17-072 July 2018, Updated