FHWA-SA-21-130

Improving Safety for Pedestrians 

and Bicyclists Accessing Transit

Improving Safety for Pedestrians 

and Bicyclists Accessing Transit

Source: FHWA
 i 

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 document does not constitute a standard, specification, or 

regulation. It is guidance only and does not create any requirements other than those stipulated in 

statute and 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.

Non-Binding Contents

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the 

public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing 

requirements under the law or agency policies. While this document contains nonbinding technical 

information, you must comply with the applicable statutes and regulations.

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to serve Government, 

industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are 

used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA 

periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality 

improvement.
 

ii

Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-21-130 

2. Government Accession 

No. 

3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

 

4. Title and Subtitle

Improving Safety for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit

5. Report Date 

September 2022 

6. Performing Organization Code

7.Author(s) 

Elissa Goughnour, Taylor Bonner, Eben Sweetser, and Darrell Smith

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc (VHB)

940 Main Campus Drive, Suite 500 

Raleigh, NC 27606

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

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

This report was produced under the direction of Tamara Redmon (FHWA Office of Safety). 

16. Abstract

Regardless of how a person began their trip; they walk, roll, or bicycle to access transit. Because of this, agencies should 

understand pedestrian and bicyclist characteristics and needs when planning and designing transit systems. This guide is 

intended for transit agencies, State and local roadway owners, and regional organizations involved with planning and 

designing transit stops and the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities that provide access to transit. The guide contains 

wide ranging topics related to pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access to transit. 

17. Key Words: 

Transit, Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Ped, Bike, Safety, 

Planning, Design, Accessible 

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this 

page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

128 

22. Price 

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

iii
 

 i 

Table of Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

Acronyms vi

 INTRODUCTION 1

About this Guide 2

Who is this Guide for? 2

What Does it Contain? 3

How to Use this Guide 3

 BACKGROUND 5

The Fundamentals 6

Who Uses Transit? 6

Distance Pedestrians and Bicyclists Are Willing to Travel to Transit 8

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Characteristics and Behavior 11

Crash Factors for Pedestrians and Bicyclists Accessing Transit 14

 TOOLS FOR IDENTIFYING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY ISSUES 17

Direct Feedback 18

Transit Stop Assessment Tools 18

Transit Stop Checklists 19

RSAs 19

Facility Inventories 20

Transit Stop Balancing 21

Estimating First-Mile/Last-Mile Access 23

Observing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Behavior 25

Essential Considerations 26

Safety Data Analysis 27

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Data Analysis 28

Health Outcome Data 30

Emerging Data Sources 32
 

 ii

 APPROACHES TO ENHANCING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY 34

Internal Actions 35

Transit Agency Organizational Improvements 36

Transit Operator Training Programs 36

Internal Agency Documentation and Policies 38

Transit Services and Facilities 41

Transit Vehicle Safety Features 43

Partnerships 43

Public Agency Partnerships 44

Public/Private Partnerships 47

Mobility as a Service 49

 DESIGN AND OPERATIONAL MEASURES 50

Transit Access 51

Pedestrian Facility Design 51

Sidewalk Width 53

Sidewalk Surface 53

Sidewalk Buffer 54

Additional Sidewalk Considerations 54

Bicyclist Facility Design 54

Facility Type Considerations 55

Shared Bus-Bicycle Lanes 57

Roadway Crossings 57

Marked Crossings 57

Refuge Islands 59

Curb Extensions 60

Reduced Corner Radii 61

Raised Crossings 61

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) 62

Modifying Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes 64

Regulatory and Warning Signs 65

Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals 66

Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box 67

Leading Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intervals 68

Turning Restrictions 69

Rail, Light Rail, and Streetcar Crossings 70

Special Considerations 78

Transit Stop/Station 79
 

 iii

Transit Stop Placement 79

Transit Stop Design 81

Curbside Stops 82

Curbside Pullouts 82

Bus Bulb Outs 83

Floating Transit Stops 84

Median Stop 86

Lighting 88

Transit Stop Amenities 88

Mobility Hubs and Micromobility 90

 OVERCOMING BARRIERS TO SAFE AND ACCESSIBLE TRANSIT 92

Changing Driver Behavior Near Transit Stops 93

Co-locating Mobility Options 94

Technological Solutions to Route Planning 95

Addressing Sidewalk Maintenance 96

Resilience Planning for Emergency Response 98

References 99

 APPENDIX A 111

RSA Prompt List Excerpt 112

Pedestrians Checklist and Considerations for Temporary Traffic Control Zones 113
iv

List of Figures

Figure 1. Graphic. Percent difference in number of transit trips by income between 2009 and 2017 (adapted from NHTS, 

2020)............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2. Graphic. Ethnic composition of riders and of the population in the United States in 2017 (adapted from APTA, 

2017)............................................................................................................................................................................................ 7

Figure 3. Graphic. Comparison of travel mode by time of day (NHTS, 2020).............................................................................. 8

Figure 4. Graphic. Examples of 1⁄2-mile walksheds for two Dallas area rapid transit rail stations (FTA, 2017). ........................... 9

Figure 5. Graphic. Online RideScore tool for identifying candidate transit stations for bicyclist facility investment (DVRPC, 

n.d.)............................................................................................................................................................................................11

Figure 6. Graphic. Bicyclist user profiles (adapted from Dill & McNeil, 2016)...........................................................................13

Figure 7. Graphic. FHWA Improving Access to Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case Studies (Goughnour et al., 2016).

...................................................................................................................................................................................................20

Figure 8. Graphic. TriMet pedestrian plan walkshed analysis (TriMet, 2020). ..........................................................................21

Figure 9. Graphic. Guide to balanced stop spacing (TransitCenter, 2018). ...............................................................................22

Figure 10. Graphic. IndyGO bus stop balancing program (IndyGO, 2020).................................................................................23

Figure 11. Graphic. Depiction of first/last mile from Los Angeles' Strategic Plan (LA Metro, 2016). .......................................24

Figure 12. Graphic. Example of the interactive maps that support Arlington, Virginia’s Vision Zero program (Arlington 

County, 2021). ...........................................................................................................................................................................29

Figure 13. Graphic. Geographic distribution of VDOT priority PSAP corridors (Virginia Department of Transportation, 2018).

...................................................................................................................................................................................................30

Figure 14. Graphic. Percent of total pedestrian fatalities and population by race, 2015-2019 (Retting, 2021). ......................32

Figure 15. Graphic. King County Metro, ‘Walk Safe’ campaign (King County Metro, 2017).* ..................................................37

Figure 16. Graphic. Denver's big moves and strategies. (City of Denver, 2019)........................................................................40

Figure 17. Photograph. A before and after photo of an RTA Access to Transit project that included the addition of a 

crosswalk, walk signal, and curb cuts to improve access to a stop on PACE's Harlem Ave. route in Palos Heights, IL (RTA, 

2021)..........................................................................................................................................................................................42

Figure 18. Photograph. Examples of between-car-barriers for light rail (FTA, 2019)................................................................43

Figure 19. Photograph. Two examples of MaineDOT pedestrian safety posters on transit vehicles (VHB, 2019).*.................45

Figure 20. Photograph. A Metro Transit stop, improved through the Better Bus Stops initiative (Farrington & Schwartz, 

2017)..........................................................................................................................................................................................46

Figure 21. Graphic. Map of the Danbury TOD Plan with priority pedestrian-friendly streets (Goody Clancy).*.......................48

Figure 22. Graphic. Space needed for two wheelchairs passing (Goughnour et al., 2020). ......................................................53

Figure 23. Graphic. Pedestrian refuge island concept featuring pedestrian regulatory and warning signs (FHWA, 2018a). ...59

Figure 24. Graphic. Dimension showing pedestrian refuge island crossing width (VHB, 2021). ...............................................60

Figure 25. Graphic. Concept demonstrating curb extensions on both sides of crosswalk (VHB, 2018)....................................61

Figure 26. Graphic. Concept showing reduced corner radii (VHB, 2021).* ...............................................................................61

Figure 27. Graphic. Raised crosswalk featuring pedestrian warning signs (FHWA, 2018b).......................................................62

Figure 28. Graphic. RRFB featuring pedestrian refuge island (FHWA, 2018c)...........................................................................63

Figure 29. Graphic. PHB featuring pedestrian regulatory and warning signs (FHWA, 2018d). .................................................64

Figure 30. Graphic. Concept featuring pedestrian warning and regulatory signs (W11-2, W16-7PL, and R1-6A) (FHWA, 

2018e)........................................................................................................................................................................................65
 

 v 

Figure 31. Graphic. Typical signal face locations for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians for separated bicycle lanes 

(MassDOT, 2015). ......................................................................................................................................................................66

Figure 32. Graphic. Concept demonstrating pedestrian and bicycle signals (VHB, 2021).*......................................................67

Figure 33. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a two-stage left-turn bicycle box (VHB, 2021).*..................................................68

Figure 34. Graphic. Concept demonstrating an all-red signal during the LPI phase (FHWA, 2019). .........................................69

Figure 35. Graphic. Concept demonstrating the "No Turn on Red" restriction (VHB, 2021).....................................................70

Figure 36. Graphic. Example of light rail transit vehicle dynamic envelope markings for mixed-use alignments. (FHWA, 2009, 

MUTCD Figure 8B-9). ................................................................................................................................................................. 73

Figure 37. Graphic. Example of dynamic envelope pavement markings at grade crossings. (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Figure 8B8)................................................................................................................................................................................................74

Figure 38. Photograph. Example of a pedestrian refuge island and channelization between tracks with fencing for 

channelization in Murray, UT (Wikimedia Commons, 2009).....................................................................................................74

Figure 39. Graphic. Two-stage left turn for bicyclists crossing rail or streetcar tracks. (VHB, 2021).........................................75

Figure 40. Photograph. Example of Long Angle Crossing with shortened pedestrian and bicycle lane crossing (top right), 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) crossing at 19th St NW & N Miami Ave, Miami, FL (Nearmap, 2021). ...........78

Figure 41. Graphic. Accessible bus stop boarding and alighting area, and shelters (U.S. Access Board, n.d.)..........................82

Figure 42. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a curbside pullout (adapted from NACTO, 2016). ...............................................83

Figure 43. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a bus bulb (adapted from NACTO, 2016). ...........................................................84

Figure 44. Graphic. Concept demonstrating an exclusive floating transit stop (adapted from NACTO, 2016). ........................85

Figure 45. Graphic. Concept demonstrating floating transit stop with an adjacent bicycle lane (adapted from NACTO, 2016).

...................................................................................................................................................................................................85

Figure 46. Graphic. Concept demonstrating left side boarding used in both directions (adapted from NACTO, 2016). ..........87

Figure 47. Graphic. Concept demonstrating right side boarding with exclusive transit lanes (adapted from NACTO, 2016)...87

Figure 48. Graphic. Minneapolis Shelter Guidelines Development (Metro Transit, 2015). ......................................................89

Figure 49. Graphic. Visualization of mobility hub services (CoMoUK, 2019).............................................................................91

List of Tables

Table 1. Considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit. .................................................................................12

Table 2. Summary of identified potential roadway and traffic risk factors for pedestrian and bicyclist crashes (adapted from 

Monsere et al., 2017).................................................................................................................................................................15

Table 3. Bikeway type and transit interactions (adapted from Schultheiss et al., 2019). .........................................................56

Table 4. Overview of active rail crossing treatments (adapted from Goodchild et al., 2017)...................................................76

Table 5. Overview of passive rail crossing treatments (adapted from Goodchild et al., 2017).................................................77

Table 6. Comparative analysis of bus stop locations (adapted from FTA 2015)........................................................................80

Table 7. Recommended pedestrian lighting levels (FHWA, 2022).............................................................................................88
 

 vi 

Acronyms

AADT – annual average daily traffic

AASHTO – American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials

ADA – Americans with Disabilities Act 

ADAAG – Americans with Disabilities Act 

Accessibility Guidelines

APC – automated passenger counter

APS – accessible pedestrian signals 

APTA – American Public Transportation 

Association

AREMA – American Railway Engineering and 

Maintenance of Way Association 

AVL – automatic vehicle location

BIPOC – Black, Indigenous, and people of 

color

CFR – Code of Federal Regulations

CTA – Chicago Transit Authority 

DVRPC – Delaware Valley Regional Planning 

Commission 

DOJ – Department of Justice

ERF – electronic registering fareboxes

eTOD –equitable transit-oriented development

FHWA – Federal Highway Administration

FRA – Federal Rail Administration

FTA – Federal Transit Administration

HSM – Highway Safety Manual

HVE – high visibility enforcement 

IA – Interim Approval

IT – information technology 

IoT – Internet of Things

ITE – Institute of Transportation Engineers

LED – light-emitting diode 

LPI – leading pedestrian intervals 

MaaS – mobility as a service

MCDOT – Montgomery County Maryland 

Department of Transportation

MPH – miles per hour

MUTCD – Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices for Streets and Highways

NACTO – National Association of City 

Transportation Officials

NCHRP – National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program

NHTS – National Household Travel Survey

NHTSA – National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

ODOT – Oregon Department of Transportation

PHB – pedestrian hybrid beacon

PBCAT – Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis 

Tool
 

 ii

PROWAG – Proposed Accessibility Guidelines 

for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-ofWay (U.S. Access Board, 2011) 

PSAP – Pedestrian Safety Action Plan

RRFB – rectangular rapid-flashing beacon

RSA – road safety audit

RTA – Regional Transportation Authority

SCAG – Southern California Association of 

Governments

SDH – social determinants of health

SFMTA – San Francisco Municipal Transit 

Authority

STEP – Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian 

Program

TAM – transit asset management 

TCRP – Transit Cooperative Research Program

TDM – transportation demand management 

TNC – transportation network company

TOD – transit-oriented development

VDOT – Virginia Department of Transportation

WABA – Washington Area Bike Association
 1 

 

 Introduction
Introduction 2 

 

Transit provides mobility options to people of all backgrounds, reduces harmful emissions, and 

supports equitable economic development. The physical safety of transit passengers while using 

and accessing transit facilities is crucial to the success of a transit system. Every transit passenger 

travels some distance by foot or mobility device, whether it is driving to a park-and-ride lot and 

then walking or rolling to the transit station, or walking, rolling, or bicycling directly to the stop. 

The roadways used to access transit facilities should be Complete Streets, which are safe and feel 

safe for all roadway users. This can be achieved by planning, implementing, and evaluating

equitable streets and networks that prioritize safety, comfort, and connectivity to destinations 

for all people who use the street network. This guide provides agencies with a thorough look at 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety considerations in accessing and using transit

About this Guide

This guide builds on the 2008 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) publication, Pedestrian Safety 

Guide for Transit Agencies (Nabors et al., 2008). Since the guide’s publication in 2008, some aspects of 

transit have stayed the same: 

“Public transportation provides people with mobility and access to employment, 

community resources, medical care, and recreational opportunities in communities 

across America. It benefits those who choose to ride, as well as those who have no 

other choice”. 

-FHWA, 2002, p. 14-2 

Other aspects of using and accessing transit—including the types of modal choices available at our 

fingertips —have changed drastically. This guide is intended to not only reflect those changes, but also 

address the safety of a variety of vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians, bicyclists, and 

micromobility users, who are similarly susceptible to severe injury or fatality if involved in a crash. 

Additionally, there are some transit riders who have unique needs and are more likely to use transit. For 

example, across all ethnicities, women have both a lower access to private motorized vehicles and lower 

driver’s license attainment than men. Communities of color represent the majority of transit riders 

(60 percent) and also tend to have longer distances to travel to their places of work (American Public 

Transportation Association, 2017). Additionally, individuals with disabilities have lower vehicle 

ownership rates than those without disabilities and are more likely to use transit for their mobility needs 

(Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 2018). Agencies should implement elements of Complete Streets, 

which consider the needs of all users when thinking about how to improve safe access to transit. This 

guide contains specific considerations about how agencies can help to make sure that all people: 1) are 

considered, 2) feel safe and welcomed accessing these facilities, and 3) can have the confidence that 

these spaces were planned and designed with them in mind. 

Who is this Guide for? 

This guide is intended for transit agencies, State and local roadway owners, and regional organizations 

involved with planning and designing transit stops and the roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities 

that provide access to transit. 
Introduction 3 

 

What Does it Contain?

The guide contains wide ranging topics related to pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access to transit

and is organized as follows:

• Chapter 1 provides an introduction and overview of the guide. 

• Chapter 2 discusses the fundamentals of pedestrian and bicyclist safety as related to access to 

transit, including the various types of passengers and how they access transit facilities. The 

chapter also describes crash contributing factors for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit. 

• Chapter 3 contains information on the various tools that analysts can use to identify issues 

related to pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access to transit, including potential data sources 

and how to analyze data. 

• Chapter 4 outlines ways to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety, ranging from internal 

actions, such as organizational improvements and training programs, to partnerships with public 

and private entities. 

• Chapter 5 focuses on design and operational measures to improve pedestrian and bicyclist

safety. The chapter is broken up into two groupings: 1) factors affecting the route to access 

transit and 2) factors affecting pedestrian and bicyclist safety at the transit stop. The section on 

accessing transit includes bicyclist and pedestrian facilities and special considerations such as 

light rail crossings. The transit stop/station design section analyzes how certain types of station 

placements and designs can impact access to the stop along with pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

• Chapter 6 discusses steps to overcome barriers to accessibility, including how to change driver 

behavior near transit stops and how to design facilities in a constrained right-of-way. 

How to Use this Guide

This guide provides a comprehensive understanding of how to address pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

concerns related to accessing transit. Throughout the guide, the core principles for pedestrian and 

bicyclist safe access to transit (as shown on the following page) are explored. Certain sections, such as 

The Fundamentals and Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues, provide a 

foundational understanding of pedestrian and bicyclist safety and are applicable to all readers. Other 

sections, such as the Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety in chapter 4, and Design 

and Operational Measures in chapter 5, maybe more applicable to specific roles or agencies. For 

example, within chapter 5, the Transit Access section is likely more applicable to roadway owners and 

the Transit Stop/Station section may be more applicable to transit agencies. 
Introduction 4 

 

The core principles for pedestrian and bicyclist safe access to transit are: 

The physical safety of transit passengers while using and accessing transit 

facilities is crucial to the success of the transit system. Every transit passenger 

travels some distance, whether it is driving and then walking or rolling from a parkand-ride lot, or walking, rolling, or cycling a longer distance to the transit stop. 

Transit use can decrease an area’s overall motor vehicle crashes by decreasing 

single occupancy vehicle trips. Roadway owners can provide pedestrians and 

bicyclists comfortable access to transit to encourage transit use. 

Transit stops are pedestrian and bicyclist generators and deserve special 

attention to reduce the risk of nonmotorized crashes.

Pedestrian and bicycling routes to access transit should reflect a connected 

network of roadway, sidewalk, and bicyclist facilities. Considerations for the 

network include:

> Directness. The pedestrian and bicyclist network should be direct between key 

destinations, but also appropriate for characteristics of the surrounding 

conditions. An agency should understand pedestrian and bicyclist “desire lines”, 

or their preferred route, and seek to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in 

these locations.

> Continuity and connectivity. The pedestrian and bicyclist network should not 

have gaps or abrupt changes besides the beginning and end terminals of a 

facility. 

> Comfort. The perceived risk and level of comfort may influence a pedestrian’s or 

bicyclist’s behavior. Factors affecting comfort levels can include degree of 

separation from vehicular traffic, lighting, roadway condition, and, for bicyclist’s, 

confidence in ability. Where possible, agencies should provide pedestrians and 

bicyclists with increased separation from motor vehicles. Additionally, 

pedestrians, particularly disabled pedestrians, may not feel as comfortable 

waiting, boarding, and alighting a transit vehicle if they are sharing that space 

with bicyclists or micromobility users. Methods to alert and slow bicyclists and 

micromobility users include pavement markings and signage to designate how 

the space should be used. 

Transit stops can enhance safety of riders but should be usable and welcoming 

to everyone. Transit stop amenities are more than just features to enhance the 

comfort of transit riders. They can help to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by 

enhancing both conspicuity and visibility of passengers, and also drivers’ awareness 

of potential increases in pedestrian and bicyclist activity. The provision and design of 

amenities can also help to improve the organization and flow of people around the 

transit stop. For instance, the provision and design of bicycle and scooter racks, 

lockers, and parking can impact the safety and accessibility of the transit stops and 

routes to the stops. 
 5 

 Background 
Background 6 

In pedestrian safety, the phrase, “Everyone is a pedestrian at some point in their day,” is 

often used. This phrase is especially true when we think of how people access transit. 

Regardless of how a person began their trip, they walk, roll, or bicycle to access transit.

Because of this, agencies should understand pedestrian and bicyclist characteristics and 

needs when planning and designing transit systems to help to create safe, comfortable, 

and connected networks by incorporating attributes of a Complete Street. 

The Fundamentals

There are certain vital pieces of information that serve as a basis for understanding how to improve 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety with regard to accessing transit. These pieces include understanding who

generally uses transit and what their needs are. To entice new or more consistent ridership, agencies 

should consider the distance pedestrians and bicyclists are willing to travel to access transit stops. These 

are not the only considerations when it comes to behavior, as certain types of groups may have extra 

needs or wants. Age, gender, race, physical ability—to name a few—all play a role in how infrastructure 

and transit should be planned and integrated to enhance safety. 

Who Uses Transit?

There are differences in trip purposes, modes, and timing that vary among genders, ages, health status, 

geography, income, and other factors. The following are observations about the similarities and 

differences in pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit trips from the National Household Travel Survey (NHTS): 

• In a typical day, roughly 1 in 6 Americans (17 percent) reported taking a walk or riding a bicycle

(NHTS, 2020).

• People who reported better health and higher levels of physical activity were more likely to 

report a trip by walking or biking (NHTS, 2020).

• Women and men reported an equal proportion of nonmotorized travel (NHTS, 2020).

• Those aged 40 to 64 reported the largest proportion of nonmotorized trips, while the smallest 

proportion was those aged 16 to 24 (NHTS, 2020).

• People who live in higher density areas were more likely to travel by walking or biking as

compared to those living in lower density areas (i.e., urban versus suburban versus rural areas).

• Persons younger than 20 years old were less likely to take transit, whereas those 65 and older 

took more transit trips, and both of these trends were led by females compared to males (NHTS, 

2019). 

• Compared to previous NHTS surveys, both higher income households ($75,000-$100,000) and 

lower income households (<$10,000) have increased transit ridership with increases in trips of 

more than 50 percent and 36 percent, respectively (NHTS, 2019). Figure 1 shows the percent 

difference in transit trips by income level between 2009 and 2017. 
Background 7 

Figure 1. Graphic. Percent difference in number of transit trips by income between 2009 and 

2017 (adapted from NHTS, 2020).

A survey on transit ridership conducted by American Public Transportation Association (APTA) found 

that when looking at transit trips through reported race and ethnicity (as shown in figure 2), White 

participants made up 40 percent of transit trips, while Black, Hispanic, Asian, and “Other” participants 

made up roughly 60 percent in 2017 (APTA, 2017). As a comparison, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and “Other” 

participants comprise just 37 percent of the population.

Figure 2. Graphic. Ethnic composition of riders and of the population in the United States in 

2017 (adapted from APTA, 2017).
Background 8 

Figure 3 shows the results of the 2017 NHTS with the percent of trips by mode and time of day (NHTS, 

2020). Each mode percentage is independent of one another, meaning that the sum of the data points 

for each hour per mode will sum to 100 percent of the trips. For example, roughly eight percent of all 

pedestrian and bicyclist trips, seven percent of auto trips, and six percent of transit trips were taken in 

the 2 pm hour.

To summarize, peak travel by mode—in terms of proportion of daily trips by those modes—were as 

follows:

• Walking/Bicycling: the morning peak is at 8 am and midday peak is between 12 pm and 3 pm, 

which represent approximately 7 percent to 8 percent of walking/bicycling trips per peak. 

• Auto: the morning peak is at 7 am and afternoon peak is between 3 pm and 5 pm, which 

represent approximately 6 percent to 8 percent of auto trips per peak. 

• Transit: the morning peak is at 7 am and afternoon peak is at 5 pm, which represent 

approximately 10 percent of transit trips per peak. 

Figure 3. Graphic. Comparison of travel mode by time of day (NHTS, 2020). 

Distance Pedestrians and Bicyclists Are Willing to Travel to 

Transit 

The typical distance pedestrians and bicyclists are willing to 

travel to transit stops—referred to as walksheds, bikesheds, or 

access sheds—is dependent on several factors including the 

type of transit service, presence and quality of supporting 

multimodal networks, land use context, and mobility of the 

user. Research has shown that most transit riders walk 1⁄4 mile

or an equivalent of 5 minutes to reach their bus stop, walk 1⁄2 

mile to reach Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) (Ryus et al., 2013), and 

walk 3⁄4 mile or 15 minutes when accessing commuter rail (ElGeneidy et al., 2014). As a matter of policy, the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) considers the catchment areas of 1⁄2 mile 

Walksheds and bikesheds 

for transit can widely vary 

depending on access to 

facilities, individual speed, 

and those with unique 

mobility needs. 
Background 9 

for pedestrians and 3 miles for bicyclists (Federal Register, 2011). Some agencies use a smaller bikeshed 

distance; the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) (2018) recommends planning on a 

bikeshed distance of 1 to 3 miles. While these walkshed and bikeshed distances are reflective of the 

average, there is wide variation among different user groups and in different locations, particularly 

when considering access to facilities, individual speed, and those with unique mobility needs. In general, 

agencies can improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by providing accessible and convenient pedestrian 

facilities within 1⁄4- to 1⁄2-mile of transit stops and stations and 1 mile of heavy rail stations and 

providing bicyclist facilities within 1 to 3 miles of transit stops and stations.

Figure 4. Graphic. Examples of 1⁄2-mile walksheds for two Dallas area rapid transit rail stations

(FTA, 2017).

The actual amount of walking or bicycling that is possible within that walkshed or bikeshed is a direct 

reflection of the quality of the multimodal network. A basic 1⁄2-mile buffer or radius around a transit 

stop may not accurately reflect the actual walking distance to transit for areas without sidewalk, nongrid roadway networks, or both (figure 4). In figure 4, the image on the left shows a much more robust 

pedestrian network than the one on the right. This might indicate that the likelihood of people walking 

to transit is higher for the network on the left versus on the right, which has limited options to walk to 

the transit stop. 

Additionally, the quality of bicyclist and pedestrian facilities can also influence their use; sidewalks 

directly on the back of the curb and on-road bicycle lanes along higher speed arterials are high stress 

facilities. Research has shown that low stress bicyclist facilities can increase bicyclist mode share, as 

supported in case studies conducted in King County, Washington and the East Village in New York City

(American Planning Association, 2015). Bicyclist infrastructure improvements such as protected bicycle 

lanes, lighting, and bicycle racks were all features that survey participants stated would encourage them 

to bicycle more. In addition, more walkable environments were predictive of people choosing to walk 

rather than drive to transit (Park et al., 2015). This was the finding in a case study out of Mountain View, 

California where factors such as sidewalk amenities, traffic impacts, street scale and enclosure, and 
Background 10

landscaping elements were used in a mode choice model. The station in the case study had 340 

available parking spaces daily yet found that improved sidewalk amenities and pedestrian friendly traffic 

conditions increased the chance of people choosing to walk to transit. 

An individual transit passenger’s mobility can also influence their effective distance to transit. Those 

individuals with slower walking speeds, such as seniors, those with mobility devices, and caregivers with 

strollers or wheelchairs, may be discouraged from accessing transit if they have to travel farther 

distances or when those facilities are space constrained and designed for faster pedestrians. 

Additionally, riders with disabilities may not be able to access fixed route transit stops if there are 

sidewalk gaps or if pedestrian facilities—such as sidewalks and traffic signals—are not accessible. 

Transit agencies and roadway owners should analyze and evaluate their pedestrian and bicyclist 

networks and strive for them to be Complete Streets that are accessible, comfortable, and connected 

access to transit for users of all abilities.

Finally, rural and suburban land uses can present their own challenges in accessing transit. In rural areas, 

there may be limited sidewalk and bicyclist networks to reach transit, and many riders may live beyond 

a 1⁄2-mile distance to a fixed route stop. Passengers may be forced to walk along roadways or on 

shoulders, increasing their crash risk. Paratransit and on-demand transit services may help overcome 

access and lack of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities in rural areas. However, these on-demand transit

services have unpredictable demand with regards to both pick-up and drop-off locations and the 

timing of requests. This presents additional challenges with how and where to design facility 

improvements given that system users can request a ride to/from any location within the network. 

Given this uncertainty, it is impractical to maintain pedestrian and bicyclist facilities within the entire ondemand transit operating zone, meaning that some pedestrians and bicyclists may have routes to or 

from their pick-up/drop-off location that could be missing sidewalks, marked crosswalks, bicyclist 

facilities, or pedestrian signals. 

Even in denser suburban land uses, curvilinear and disconnected street networks and sidewalk gaps can 

increase the walking and bicycling distance to transit. Also, pedestrians and bicyclists may cross arterial 

roadways with high traffic volumes and speeds to access transit in suburban environments, which can 

increase crash risk and discomfort. Chapter 3 describes how transit agencies can evaluate bicyclist and 

pedestrian access to stations and stops. 
Background 11

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Characteristics and Behavior

Some of the primary considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists include travel speeds, spatial needs, 

and mobility needs/factors. In addition to providing a clear and accessible route, there are other more 

nuanced needs related to mobility factors, user confidence, demographic characteristics, and cognitive 

abilities to consider. Table 1 summarizes some of the needs that planners and designers may want to 

consider for pedestrians and bicyclists in accessing and using transit. 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

Transit Station Evaluation Tool

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) developed the web-based RideScore 

tool to evaluate commuter rail, trolley, and subway stations outside of the City of Philadelphia’s core 

for bicycle facility improvements. RideScore, shown in figure 5, calculates a value for each station 

based on 10 variables, including proximity to on-road bicycle facilities, population and employees 

within 1 mile, nearby shared-use paths and trails, and intersection density within 1⁄2 mile (a measure of 

walkability and street connectivity). The tool integrates typical walking and bicycling distances to 

transit—among other variables—to support DVRPC and local agencies in better coordinating transit 

and bicycle facility improvements to increase ridership.

Figure 5. Graphic. Online RideScore tool for identifying candidate transit stations for bicyclist

facility investment (DVRPC, n.d.). 
Background 12

Table 1. Considerations for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit.

Transit User Group Considerations

General • Need safe, accessible, and connected pedestrian and bicyclist facilities that are 

connected to the transit facility.

• Generally prefer to use the most direct route to and from the transit facility.

• May feel unsafe travelling to/from, or waiting at, transit stops (especially at 

night or in isolated locations)(Whitfield et al., 2018; Lubitow et al., 2019). 

• May not understand traffic flow or travel patterns. 

• May have difficulty with orientation and understanding traffic signs. 

• May have difficulty judging speed of approaching vehicles.

• May be more affected by surface irregularities in the pavement and changes in 

slope or grade.

• Children may have difficulty seeing (and being seen by) drivers of all types of 

vehicles, including buses because of decreased detection of threats within their 

peripheral vision (David et al., 1986) and shorter stature than adults. 

Bicyclists • Need safe and connected bicyclist facilities within the bikeshed leading to the 

transit facility.

• May have a child or additional luggage on the bicycle, which can make the 

bicycle heavier and more cumbersome to handle. This can impact the ability to 

stop quickly, make sharp turns, or load into bicycle parking or a transit vehicle.

• May need more space or time when boarding transit to load their bicycle on 

the transit vehicle (such as loading onto a train or securing it to the front of the 

bus). 

• Certain styles and types of bicycles—such as electric bicycles or cargo 

bicycles—may not fit onto transit vehicles or could be difficult to load due to 

the weight of the bicycle.

• Some riders may not be physically capable of lifting the bicycle onto transit

vehicle racks. 

• Adequate and secure storage areas for bicycles are needed at the transit 

facility if the traveler is not continuing by bicycle for the remainder of their trip, 

if the transit vehicle does not have space for their bicycle, or if the transit

agency has policies against bringing the bicycle onto transit. 

Pedestrians • Need accessible and connected pedestrian facilities within the walkshed 

leading to the transit facility.

• May have a child (possibly with a stroller) or luggage (such as a suitcase or 

grocery cart) and need more space to maneuver and store/secure items.

• May have difficulty deciding where and when it is safe to cross the street.

• May need more time to cross a street due to walking speed.

• May have reduced vision and hearing acuity that affect their awareness of 

oncoming traffic or transit.

• May need pedestrian signal information provided in multiple formats (audible, 

tactile, and visual).

• May need accommodations at transit stops, such as additional seating or lean 

bars.
Background 13

Within the broader community, there is a spectrum of types of bicyclists with varying levels of comfort 

and skill. Figure 6 illustrates one method for categorizing bicyclists as related to their confidence and 

tolerance of traffic stress (Dill & McNeil, 2016). 

Figure 6. Graphic. Bicyclist user profiles (adapted from Dill & McNeil, 2016).

Understanding common pedestrian and bicyclist behaviors is essential to promoting pedestrian safety 

near transit. Pedestrians typically take the most direct line possible to minimize the distance and time 

they walk to reach their destination. Placing roadway crossing facilities at the most direct crossing 

locations can make the crossing attractive to pedestrians. Poorly designed environments often result in 

pedestrians using informal paths through properties and crossing roadways at locations without 

pedestrian safety enhancements. Providing convenient and direct pedestrian connections can help to 

make sure the facilities are used as intended, ultimately enhancing pedestrian safety. 

Bicyclists often ride in the road because sidewalk riding may be illegal, and they can avoid slower 

pedestrian traffic. If designated bicyclist infrastructure does not exist, many potential bicyclists may 

choose to ride on the sidewalk or avoid bicycling altogether. This scenario puts pedestrians at risk who 

now share the walkway with higher speed bicyclists, and it also puts the bicyclists at risk for crashes with 

motorized vehicles as drivers may not see them as they cross a driveway or intersection. Alternatively, 

bicyclists may still choose to ride in the roadway but could be exposed to the risk of a crash with 
Background 14

motorized vehicles—particularly on higher speed, higher volume, multilane roadways. Connected 

bicyclist infrastructure provides a more comfortable and safer method for bicyclists to reach transit 

facilities. 

Pedestrians and bicyclists who are at risk of missing their transit connection may act in ways that 

increase their chances of being involved in a crash. These may include: 

• Running or bicycling faster to catch transit. 

• Crossing against signals or at locations that do not have marked crossing facilities or safety 

enhancements. 

• Bicycling on roads where they feel less comfortable (due to the number of lanes and speed or 

volume of vehicles).

• Walking or bicycling between stopped or parked vehicles, including buses. 

• Stepping into the street to pass other transit riders that are waiting at a transit stop.

The safety treatments listed in chapter 5 can help reduce pedestrian and bicyclist crash risk when 

accessing, waiting for, and using transit services. 

Crash Factors for Pedestrians and Bicyclists 

Accessing Transit

While investigating crashes—in this context transit-related crashes involving pedestrians or bicyclists, or 

crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists who are traveling to or from transit—patterns and trends in 

the data can help agencies better understand crash risk and determine associated crash factors. In 

addition to crash statistics, agencies can evaluate other data, such as transit logistics or traffic volume, 

to assess the risk for pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit.

In 2019, pedestrian crashes accounted for 17 percent of all 

traffic fatalities, but only 3 percent of the total number of 

people injured, thus emphasizing the more severe outcome 

of crashes involving pedestrians (National Center for 

Statistics and Analysis, 2020). With 82 percent of pedestrian 

and 78 percent of bicyclist fatalities occurring in urban 

settings (NHTSA, 2019), and given that transit ridership is 

highest in urban areas, urban agencies should pay particular 

attention to the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists traveling 

to and from transit facilities. 

Transit service by its nature operates in a multimodal 

environment that presents crash risks for pedestrians and bicyclists. Analyses of pedestrian crashes in 

Seattle, Los Angeles, Toronto, and Charlotte have shown that pedestrian crossings near transit stops 

have higher crash risks (Craig et al., 2019). Similarly, the National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program (NCHRP) 893 Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis found that the presence of transit stops and 

the number of stops along a roadway segment are both associated with elevated pedestrian crash risk 

Transit stops are traffic 

generators—particularly for 

pedestrians and bicyclists. 

These locations deserve special 

attention to reduce the 

pedestrian and bicyclist crash 

risk. 
Background 15

(Thomas et al., 2018). Other transit activity measures, such as the number of buses stopping along a 

segment and the increasing numbers of passengers boarding or alighting at a stop, were also 

associated with an increase in pedestrian crash risk. Transit agencies can mitigate high risk locations and 

partner with other agencies to implement safety improvements for accessing transit stops. 

Table 2. Summary of identified potential roadway and traffic risk factors for pedestrian and 

bicyclist crashes (adapted from Monsere et al., 2017).

Risk Factors Bicyclist Pedestrian Both

Horizontal curves x x x 

Presence of bus stops x x x 

Number of driveways x x x 

Presence of median x x x 

Traffic volume x x x 

Number of lanes x x x 

Posted/vehicle speed x x x 

Percent heavy vehicles x x x 

Lighting x x x 

Lane width x x x 

Presence of bicycle lanes x - - 

Presence of bicycle paths x - - 

Presence of parking x - - 

Vertical grade (slope) x - - 

Width of bicycle lanes x - - 

Average sidewalk width - x - 

Distance to the closest marked crosswalk or 

intersections

- x - 

Maximum number of crossing stages - x - 

Number of traffic directions - x - 

Paved shoulder - x - 

Presence of marked crosswalk - x - 

Presence of paved sidewalk - x - 

Total road width - x - 

Pedestrian delay - x - 

Note: dashed line indicates the item is not applicable to the category.

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) analyzed pedestrian and bicyclist crashes to improve 

its methodology for identifying and prioritizing high risk locations. As part of the process, ODOT 

produced a literature review that identified the key risk factors for both modes (table 2, showing 

combined roadway and traffic characteristics)(Monsere et al., 2017). ODOT identified the proximity to 

transit stops as a risk factor for both modes. ODOT incorporated many of the risk factors into crash 

occurrence and crash severity models for intersections and segments and evaluated their statistical 

significance for the State’s crash data and roadway network. The number of transit lines through an 
Background 16

intersection was a significant variable for both pedestrian and bicyclist crash occurrence models. Other 

State departments of transportation (DOTs) can replicate the analysis process to find those risk factors 

applicable to their roadway networks. 

The use of crash types to organize and analyze pedestrian and bicyclist crashes can support a transit 

agency’s response to safety issues through identification of precrash actions and potential 

countermeasures. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis Tool (PBCAT) provides a pedestrian and 

bicycle crash typing tool with definitions for both pedestrian and bicyclist crashes (Thomas et al., 2021).

The tool provides the following optional, special circumstances screening questions related to transit: 

• Was the non-motorist struck crossing in front of a transit bus stopped at a marked bus stop? 

• Was the non-motorist struck while going to, from, or waiting at a transit bus stop, regardless of 

the circumstances? 

• Was the non-motorist struck by a transit bus pulling into or away from the curb or loading area? 

While there are no specific crash types for transit within PBCAT, most—if not all—of the pedestrian and 

bicyclist crash types are relevant to understanding crashes for people traveling to and from transit. 

Chapter 5 includes operational and design improvements to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian crashes 

near transit stops.
 17

Tools for Identifying 

Pedestrian and 

Bicyclist Safety Issues 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 18

To improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety, agencies should first understand what safety issues 

are present and where best to focus their time and effort. This chapter includes a variety of tools 

for identifying pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues as related to both access to transit and also 

more broadly. The tools include some that involve the public, such as direct feedback and transit 

stop assessments, while others rely on professionals and data analysis, such Road Safety Audits 

(RSAs) and transit stop balancing. The chapter also provides an overview of pedestrian and 

bicyclist data analysis and potential sources of data. 

Direct Feedback 

There are mechanisms for gathering direct feedback from transit users and providers, including 

conducting surveys, questionnaires, and listening sessions. Agencies may find it useful to gather 

feedback from unique user groups, such as the disability community, schools, older adults, or other 

users. Transit agencies typically host advisory committees—possibly with an accessibility focus and 

comprised of persons with disabilities and seniors, or with more general rider advisory committees. 

Advisory committees can serve a range of purposes, from facilitating regular communication between 

the disability community and a transit agency to providing input for a specific activity, such as the 

design of one transit stop (Easter Seals Project Action, 2012). 

Another way of gathering information is crowd sourcing locations and issues using clickable maps. 

This information can help to visualize and catalog safety issues, such as near miss locations. Pedestrian 

and bicyclist crashes are oftentimes underreported, so crowd sourcing additional information can 

complement crash data analysis. In the Washington, DC area, the Washington Area Bike Association 

(WABA) created a web-based reporting form for those involved in a bicyclist crash, witnessed a bicyclist

crash, or experienced a near miss incident. Because the data includes accounts from witnessed events 

and near misses, the data can provide more insight into areas of risk than relying solely on emergency 

responder reported injury and fatality crash data. However, as crowdsource data is self-reported, data 

quality is compromised as the reports lack a unified format and standard (Mardan and Zhu, 2019). 

Internally, agency staff can provide direct feedback through operator safety assessment reviews. 

Transit agencies invest in both initial and refresher safety training for their operators, and their feedback 

can be invaluable in identifying safety concerns and risks. When there is an incident, transit agencies

investigate the incident, attempt to determine the root cause, and record their findings for future trend 

analysis. These trend analyses can lead to actions to prevent future incidents, ranging from targeted 

training to modifications in transit routes, stops and facilities, and equipment. 

Transit Stop Assessment Tools

This section provides tools to evaluate the safety and accessibility of transit stops for pedestrians and 

bicyclists. The tools include transit stop checklists, RSAs, pedestrian and bicyclist catchment area facility 

inventories, and transit stop balancing. 

While the chapter presents tools for transit agencies to use, agency partners such as local, regional, and 

State agencies; public interest and community groups; university researchers; and nonprofit 

organizations may also benefit from the tools.
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 19

Transit Stop Checklists

Transit stop checklists assist transit agencies or residents with assessing conditions at transit stops. The 

checklists have most commonly been used for bus stops. However, they can also apply to all other 

types of transit, such as streetcars, shuttle services, or any other fixed route service. Checklists typically 

document:

• Pedestrian and bicyclist facility presence and condition near the transit stop. 

• Roadway crossing treatments near the transit stop (crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian/bicycle 

signals).

• Path of access between the pedestrian and bicycle facilities and transit stop boarding area. 

• Readability of transit stop signs. 

• Obstructions at the transit stop. 

• Transit stop shelter and amenities, including bicycle parking, seating, lighting, etc. 

• Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards (boarding and alighting 

area, etc.). 

This type of checklist can help to facilitate a conversation between transit riders, the owner of the 

roadway, and the transit agency, providing a mechanism for decision-makers to understand the needs, 

preferences, and concerns relating to transit stop access. The checklist is not necessarily a standards 

check, although an agency could tailor the checklist for use in that manner. Appendix A provides an 

example bus stop checklist from San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA). 

RSAs

While transit stop checklists may help an agency understand some of the pedestrian and bicyclist needs 

and potential safety issues, an RSA is a more robust process that is conducted with a team of 

professionals with a variety of skillsets, including: 

• Roadway safety. 

• Bicyclist and pedestrian safety and 

infrastructure. 

• Roadway design. 

• Traffic operations. 

• Transit planning and operations.

• ADA specialist/disability advocacy 

organizations.

• Law enforcement and emergency services.

Transit agencies or roadway owners may decide to initiate an RSA to investigate community concerns, 

evaluate a crash spot or high injury corridor, provide an additional perspective on safety improvements, 

or any combination thereof. During the audit, the RSA team may rely on prompt lists, which outline 

potential issues for consideration. 

The RSA can be conducted during several stages of a roadway project including preconstruction 

(planning, preliminary design, final design), construction (work zone traffic control plan, preopening), 

and post construction (including existing roads open to traffic). While the RSA team typically does not 

possess the authority to change a design that is being audited, it can highlight safety concerns and 

recommend measures that can reasonably be implemented within the project’s timeline and budget.
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 20

Appendix A provides an excerpt of the prompt lists from the FHWA Pedestrian and Bicyclist Road Safety 

Audit (RSA) Guide and Prompt Lists (Goughnour et al., 2020). 

Facility Inventories 

A successful transit system provides access to riders of all abilities. To that end, transit agencies can 

review areas within which a pedestrian or bicyclist is expected to access a transit stop/station, known as 

Access to Transit RSA 

Case Studies

In 2016, FHWA published Improving Access to 

Transit Using Road Safety Audits: Four Case 

Studies (Goughnour et al., 2016). The report 

(figure 7) discusses the RSA process and 

highlights four case study examples of RSAs that 

sought to improve access to transit. The four 

locations were: 

• City of Asheville, North Carolina.

• Orange County, Florida.

• City of Springfield, Oregon.

• City of Tucson, Arizona.

These locations had a high frequency of 

pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit crashes; high 

transit ridership; or were locations where 

planning for changes to transit service were 

underway. During the RSAs, some of the 

common conditions that appeared to present 

challenges to transit users were:

Figure 7. Graphic. FHWA Improving 

Access to Transit Using Road Safety 

Audits: Four Case Studies (Goughnour et 

al., 2016).

• Lack of ADA compliant accessible routes and transit stops.

• Driver behavior and lack of yielding to pedestrians at marked and unmarked crosswalks.

• Lack of pedestrian crossing measures along routes to transit stops, including pedestrian 

signals and crosswalks.

• Pedestrians crossing mid-block to use the most direct route or intentionally crossing 

away from intersections due to safety concerns.

The case studies include photographs, a project background, and key RSA findings and suggestions. 

These case studies will help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies better understand conditions 

that affect transit access and how to effectively address safety in the RSA process. 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 21

a walkshed, bikeshed, or access shed. Agencies can use geographic information system (GIS) tools to 

map out pedestrian network access for all users to stops within a certain distance threshold—typically 

1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile for pedestrians and 1 to 3 miles for bicyclists—to reveal gaps in pedestrian and bicyclist 

facilities. Since a transit agency’s control generally begins and ends at the transit stop or station, the 

agency will need to work with local and State roadway owners to implement solutions to fill those gaps. 

The facility inventory within the walkshed and bikeshed 

relies on quality data. Pedestrian and bicyclist facility

data can vary drastically in terms of availability, quality, 

and format (e.g., not all data are in GIS and it may be 

challenging to convert to GIS format). Transit agencies 

should consider working with local governments to 

confirm that the data collection and asset inventories 

meet their needs. For example, many jurisdictions may 

collect data on sidewalk assets and conditions; 

however, these datasets may not contain crosswalks, 

curb ramps, or pedestrian signals (and accessibility 

provisions), which are critical to understanding 

pedestrian access to transit. For bicyclists, agencies 

may have an accurate inventory of facilities such as 

trails, dedicated or separated lanes, or shared lanes, 

but not differentiate between the bicyclist experience 

for those facilities. 

In 2020, TriMet of Portland, Oregon, embarked on a 

pedestrian plan to identify priorities for improving 

walking and rolling (bicycling, wheelchairs, etc.) access 

to transit as well as identify opportunities for 

cooperation between the agency and the owner of the 

right-of-way. The transit walksheds were defined as 1⁄4 

mile of the network distance (i.e., an existing viable 

route using the existing pedestrian network) as shown 

in figure 8 (TriMet, 2020). The plan used mapping, GIS analyses, and community and agency input to 

create a project list and recommended strategies. As part of the mapping exercise, TriMet developed 

one region-wide inventory of planned improvements and determined which projects would expand 

transit walksheds, allowing more people to walk and roll to transit stops and stations. TriMet also 

reported that the project analysis did not include crossing infrastructure or crossing gaps, because 

regionwide data was not available. 

Transit Stop Balancing

The balancing, and oftentimes consolidation, of transit stops allows transit agencies to optimize transit 

stop spacing and performance with minimal affects to ridership and service areas. Over time, a transit 

agency may find that its routes include stops that are underutilized, numerous duplicative stops, and 

stops that are that too closely spaced (given the land use context). After internal analysis and robust 

Figure 8. Graphic. TriMet pedestrian plan 

walkshed analysis (TriMet, 2020).
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 22

public engagement, a transit agency may decide to consolidate or remove stops to reduce delays 

associated with acceleration and deceleration, door opening and closing times, traffic signal delays, and 

transit vehicle reentry into the travel lane (Ryus, 2016). Together, these changes can reduce transit travel 

times and may also allow the transit agency to focus on the provision of amenities at stops, upgrades 

for ADA compliance, and safety improvements. However, the transit agency should incorporate robust 

community outreach as part of any transit stop consolidation effort to make sure that stops are 

convenient, particularly in areas with low vehicle ownership and especially for those pedestrians with 

mobility challenges, as shown in figure 9 (TransitCenter, 2018). 

Figure 9. Graphic. Guide to balanced stop spacing (TransitCenter, 2018). 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 23

Estimating First-Mile/Last-Mile Access

Generally, transit trips using fixed route services, by their nature, require another mode to access both 

the origin and destination stops or stations. Agencies can use modeling as an estimate for the firstmile/last-mile access and should take into account a number of factors, including:

• Transit boardings and alightings at each station or stop.

• Pedestrian and bicycle network connectivity to the station or stop, including the street network, 

sidewalk network, and bicyclist network, typically within 1⁄4 mile to 3 miles of the station or stop.

• Parking availability for vehicles and bicycles at the station or stop. 

• Surrounding population and employment. 

• Surrounding land use development, including transit-oriented development (TOD). 

While first-mile/last-mile access is thought of in terms of the physical distance, some research suggests 

that an access time of 5 to 10 minutes is the more direct measure perceived by travelers, regardless of 

the mode chosen (Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization, 2018). Rapid transit offering a 

high frequency of departures (for example, a heavy rail line) tends to include a larger first-mile/last-mile 

access area than a slower, less frequent mode (for example, a local bus route). 

Indianapolis Transit Stop Balancing and Relocation for Safety

The Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation (IndyGO) completed a system-wide bus stop 

balancing program in October 2020 to improve its system performance (figure 10). IndyGO updated 

its service standards in 2019, and stop spacing was one of the agency’s defining features across its 

rapid, frequency, and basic service categories. The revised stop spacing standards recognized that 

wider spacing would increase the likelihood that bus stops would be located closer to signalized and 

enhanced crossing locations, thereby creating a safer pedestrian environment. The maximum added 

walk time for transit riders was kept to 5 minutes (1⁄4 mile) or less.

Figure 10. Graphic. IndyGO bus stop balancing program (IndyGO, 2020). 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 24

Other factors that can increase first-mile/last-mile access include provisions for first-mile/last-mile 

modes at stops or stations, such as bikeshare, e-scooters, and vehicle pick-up/drop-off access; as well 

as wayfinding information, both at the station or stop and throughout the surrounding area to the 

station or stop.

Los Angeles First/Last Mile Strategic Plan

In March 2014, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), released the Metro First/Last Mile Strategic 

Plan (LA Metro, 2016). Metro and SCAG recognized that while public transit services may provide the 

core portion of a trip, passengers complete the first and last portion on their own through walking, 

biking, or other means, as shown in figure 11. The plan’s goal is to better coordinate infrastructure 

investments to facilitate the first and last trip portions from station areas, extending the reach of 

transit and ultimately increasing ridership. To achieve this goal, the plan introduces the Pathway, a 

proposed county-wide, transit access network designed to reduce the distance and time it takes 

people to travel from their origins to stations and from stations to their ultimate destinations. The 

Pathway results in a series of active transportation improvements along specific access routes that 

seamlessly connect passengers with intermodal facilities, such as bicycle share, car share, bus stops, 

or regional bikeways. 

Since adopting the plan in 2016, Metro now partners with local communities and stakeholders to 

develop a set of community-supported improvements along the key pathways that respond to the 

unique conditions of each station area. Improvements include:

• Crosswalks, bulb-outs, street trees, and landscaping.

• Signal timing for pedestrians and bicyclists.

• Bicycle lanes, bicycle parking, and bicycle share stations.

• Wayfinding signage to key destinations and connections.

• Real time transit information signs and kiosks.

Figure 11. Graphic. Depiction of first/last mile from Los Angeles' Strategic Plan 

(LA Metro, 2016).
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 25

Observing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Behavior

Transit agencies can gather useful information about pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit by 

observing pedestrian and bicyclist behavior near stops and stations. For pedestrians, observers can note 

activity, such as pedestrians: 

• Using recreational trails or informal pathways or walking in the roadway where sidewalks do not 

exist. 

• Waiting too close or too far from the roadway due to inadequate bus stop placement. 

• Crossing roadways at unmarked, midblock locations or at unmarked crosswalks at intersections. 

• Running across roadways to catch the bus.

• Stepping out into the street to be seen by transit operators, or boarding and alighting in the 

roadway, due to obstructions such as queued or parked vehicles. 

• Competing for seating or shelter space at a bus stop. 

• Experiencing crowding conditions due to high passenger demand with queues limiting space to 

maneuver on the sidewalk. 

From a bicyclist perspective, observers should note activity, such as:

• Bicycles locked on trees, lampposts, or handrails alluding to lack of bicycle storage options. 

• Bicyclist-bus leapfrogging (i.e., passing each other multiple times) when traveling in the same 

direction. 

• Bicyclist path obstruction because of bus boarding and alighting. 

• Bicyclist conflicts or near misses with transit passengers boarding and alighting. 

• Bicyclists swerving to avoid obstacles (e.g., debris, cracks, and potholes) in the roadway or at the 

transit stop. 

For drivers, observers can note activity, such as:

• Speeding.

• Making sudden movements to pass or turn in front of a bus.

• Not yielding to crossing pedestrians or bicyclists.

Transit agencies can use the results of these observations to improve transit stop locations, transit stop

and roadway design, or service schedules. They can also provide information to schools and other 

organizations to develop targeted education messages, confer with local police on ideas for targeted 

enforcement of driver and pedestrian behaviors, and coordinate with local transportation engineers on 

improvements to crosswalks, sidewalks, bicyclist facilities, roadway striping, and signage. 

Agencies can also use observations of pedestrian and bicyclist behavior to highlight the importance of 

Complete Street improvements and convey the experience of accessing the local transit system to 

transit agency staff, governmental agency staff, developers, and politicians.
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 26

 

Essential Considerations

Because public transportation provides open door service to all who wish to travel, agencies should 

anticipate a wide range of users who access transit service and take advantage of connections to 

pedestrian and bicyclist facilities. Many of these relate to the types of origins and destinations served by 

the immediate transit route, but planners and designers should keep in mind that transit systems 

function as networks, so different passenger markets and needs can be served anywhere on these 

systems. 

Since some transit users are dependent on transit for the majority of their trips, including for basic 

products and services such as groceries and medical care, agencies should consider the barriers that 

can impede these trips. For example, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership identified the 

following barriers for people using transit to access grocery shopping (Safe Routes to School National 

Partnership, 2017): 

• Transit routes may not directly connect grocery and market locations with those where people 

live and work. 

• Transit schedules may not serve individual shopping schedules. 

• Transfers and total travel time may cause passengers to worry about making it home in time to 

store perishable food items.

In this example, people may choose to take the most direct route to and from the market and transit 

stop due to the heavy load they are carrying or because of the perishable items. This may result in 

unexpected crossings, walking in the roadway, and other risky behaviors by transit riders. Section 2.3.2 

of the FTA ADA Circular notes that transit agencies are responsible for clearing obstructions that create 

accessibility barriers in areas directly controlled by the transit agency’s organization. An example of this 

is removing snow at bus stops over which the transit agency has direct control. For the area 

surrounding the transit stop, the FTA encourages coordination with other public entities or private 

property owners, as noted in the guide, Effective Snow Removal for Pathways and Transit Stops by the 

National Aging and Disability Transportation Center (National Aging and Disability Transportation 

Center, 2016). 

The Minneapolis-St Paul Area Metro Council Bicycle and 

Pedestrian Connections to Transit Infrastructure Study

The Minneapolis-St Paul Area Metro Council Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit 

Infrastructure Study (Metropolitan Transit, 2009) was tasked with identifying infrastructure 

improvements for connections for walking and bicycling to transit. As part of this study, the Council 

developed a toolkit of improvements in three categories, including legal access (ADA curb access for 

transit and pedestrian curb cuts and ramps), safety (bicycle lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian hybrid 

beacons, median refuge islands, sidewalks, lighting, etc.), and facilities (benches, bicycle lockers, 

shelters, etc.). 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 27

Other examples of potential obstructions include shared micromobility devices such as dockless 

scooters and bicycles. Although micromobility users are provided guidance on where to leave the 

devices when the trip is finished, they are sometimes parked in locations that block the sidewalk or 

transit stop. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) recommends that cities 

require micromobility operators to keep the public right-of-way clear by removing any devices 

obstructing walkways within a designated timeframe (NACTO, 2019). Edmond, Oklahoma, has only one 

micromobility operator, but provides the operator’s phone number and email for public contact to 

request the removal of any device inappropriately located (City of Edmond, n.d.).

Inaccessibility of a bus stop and surrounding pedestrian environment can impact demand for ADA 

complementary paratransit for a rider who could otherwise use the fixed route service. It is often more 

cost effective to make and keep the bus stop and sidewalk accessible than to provide ADA paratransit 

on an ongoing basis. Incorporating elements of a Complete Street, including accessibility 

improvements, also improves mobility for many other riders, including those who are pushing strollers, 

pulling wheeled luggage, etc. 

Safety Data Analysis

There are many ways that data analysis can help to better understand and quantify bicyclist and 

pedestrian safety with respect to transit access. For example, the discussion on Estimating First/Last Mile 

Access earlier in chapter 3 discussed how agencies can use data to improve access. Similarly, agencies 

can incorporate many data sources into their analysis to identify and mitigate specific risk factors—such 

as the previously mentioned observational data in Observing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Behavior in 

chapter 3. 

Traditional safety data focuses on crash data, roadway data, and traffic volume data. These data can 

help to identify infrastructure and exposure factors that increase the risk of pedestrian and bicyclist 

crashes. Beyond these traditional datasets, agencies may want to use other data to understand the 

needs of pedestrians and bicyclists accessing transit. Examples include pedestrian catchment area 

facility inventories discussed earlier in chapter 3, crowdsourced data, survey findings, and observational 

data. While some data sources are readily available—such as socioeconomic data from the census and 

transit ridership—others are oftentimes lacking. For example, pedestrian and bicyclist volume data may 

be sporadically collected and not cover the entire network. Because of that, pedestrian and bicyclist

crash exposure and demand are not easily quantifiable. Similarly, there are not typically readily available 

geocoded data layers for common origins and destinations, such as schools, hospitals, and cultural 

centers. 

This section focuses on pedestrian and bicyclist crash data analysis, the use of health outcome data, and 

other new transit specific data sources. 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 28

Pedestrian and Bicyclist Crash Data Analysis

There are two basic approaches to identifying and treating locations to help reduce future crashes and 

injuries:

1. The high-crash location approach. These locations may also be referred to as “crash clusters” or 

“hot spots”. This approach is reactive and assumes that crashes will continue to occur in the 

same locations as they have historically. 

2. The systemic, or risk-based, approach. This approach identifies locations with elevated crash 

risks. As severe and fatal crashes can be random in nature, this approach proactively identifies 

high-risk locations so that they can be treated before a crash occurs. 

Regardless of the method chosen, agencies may find that crash analysis for pedestrians and bicyclists is

challenging. The following are some of the challenges that agencies may encounter: 

> Pedestrians and bicyclists are much more likely to be killed or seriously injured in crashes 

involving motor vehicles than vehicle occupants or drivers. However, as a proportion of total 

crashes, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes can be relatively rare. This means that across an entire 

network, the fatality and serious injury risk for pedestrians and bicyclists may be relatively high, 

but it may be challenging to identify specific high-crash locations. The potential lack of highcrash locations could support a systemic or risk-based approach for the analysis. 

> The types of data needed for robust pedestrian and bicyclist safety analysis are often incomplete 

or unavailable. Specifically, many agencies may not have robust infrastructure inventories (e.g.,

sidewalk presence and quality, locations for marked crosswalks, etc.) and may lack 

comprehensive pedestrian and bicyclist counts (or exposure data). Similarly, the level of detail 

available for pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, compared to motor vehicles, is often lacking. For 

example, in a crash involving two motorized vehicles, a crash type might be recorded as an 

“angle crash” and within the attributes, it is noted that one driver was traveling straight and the 

other was making a right-turn. For a similar crash between a bicyclist and a motorized vehicle, 

the crash may be categorized as a “bicycle crash” with the attributes as “failure to yield”. Only 

upon reading the full crash narrative may the exact movements be understood. 

To overcome these challenges, analysts can rely on surrogate measures to help understand typical 

characteristics of roadways, such as posted speed limit and number of lanes, or the use of 

socioeconomic data, such as vehicle ownership, to help identify areas with more walking, bicycling, and 

transit usage. With this analysis, transit agencies and roadway owners can work together to develop 

informed plans that will reduce the risk of crashes by improving pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and 

connections to transit.
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 29

 

Figure 12. Graphic. Example of the interactive maps that support Arlington, Virginia’s Vision 

Zero program (Arlington County, 2021).

It can also be helpful to publish the crash data analysis so that other organizations and individuals can 

understand crash risks and become partners in helping to improve transportation safety. This approach 

is a key component of Vision Zero programs that aim to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries. 

Figure 12 provides an example of interactive crash analysis maps developed by Arlington County, 

Virginia (Arlington County, 2021). 

The following are useful resources when conducting pedestrian and bicyclist crash data analysis: 

• American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety 

Manual (HSM) (AASHTO, 2010). 

• FHWA Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicycle Exposure to Risk at Areawide 

Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities (Turner et al., 2017). 

• FHWA Guide for Scalable Risk Assessment Methods for Pedestrians and Bicyclists (Turner et al., 

2018). 

• FHWA Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash Locations Bicyclists (Fitzpatrick et al., 

2018). 

• National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 17-73 Systemic Pedestrian 

Safety Analysis (National Academies of Sciences, 2018).

• NCHRP 07-17 Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority 

Tool Guidebook (National Academies of Sciences, 2015).
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 30

Health Outcome Data

As illustrated through the Virginia example, it is important that the data analysis includes health figures, 

social determinants of health (SDH), and social equity data sets. SDH are defined by the Center for 

Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as “conditions in the places where people live, learn, work, and 

play that affect a wide range of health and quality-of-life-risks and outcomes (CDC, 2021).” 

VDOT Pedestrian Safety Program

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has been working to improve pedestrian safety 

throughout the Commonwealth. In 2018, VDOT developed a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan (PSAP) 

(Virginia Department of Transportation, 2018). VDOT updated the PSAP as newer data became 

available, including a statewide transit data layer and a dataset called the Health Opportunity Index. 

VDOT used the transit layer to better identify collocated transit facilities with those areas of severe 

and fatal pedestrian crash risk. Additionally, the Health Opportunity Index provided insights on areas 

with poor health outcomes. A Bayesian spatial analysis indicated that the Health Opportunity Index 

and pedestrian fatalities were strongly correlated and therefore was a good additional indicator of 

locations with elevated pedestrian crash risk. Ultimately VDOT uses their plan to help direct funds to 

improve pedestrian safety at locations shown in figure 13 through infrastructure improvements like 

the ones mentioned in this guide. 

Figure 13. Graphic. Geographic distribution of VDOT priority PSAP corridors (Virginia 

Department of Transportation, 2018).
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 31

Healthy People 2030 uses a place-based framework that lists five areas of SDH (U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, n.d.): 

• Healthcare access and quality. 

• Education access and quality. 

• Social and community context. 

• Economic stability. 

• Neighborhood and the built environment. 

Providing resources and mitigation strategies to enhance quality of life can have a significant influence 

on population health outcomes. The incorporation of Complete Streets policies and roadway designs, 

that provide safer transportation options and access to multiple modes of transportation, can better the 

neighborhood and built environment, help reduce emissions and air pollution, and increase physical 

activity amongst users. 

Social equity is described as “just and fair inclusion into a society in which all can participate, prosper, 

and reach their full potential. Unlocking the promise of the nation by unleashing the promise in us all

(Policy Link, n.d.).” A focus on social equity can be put in place to confirm all neighborhoods have 

access to transportation and are not adversely affected by increased air pollution, noise pollution, or 

safety hazards by being near highways, busy roads, or overpasses. 

States and localities can analyze the overall safety of a street or transportation network and change 

social equity and SDHs for the better. A focus on safety can lead to improved situations, including 

installing safer crossings, enhanced access to transit, and infill of sidewalk gaps or missing connections 

to key destinations. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the 

pedestrian fatality rate for seniors (65 years or older) per 100,000 population was roughly 25-percent 

higher than the total pedestrian fatality rate (2.29 versus 1.84, respectively) (NHTSA, 2019). A report 

from the Govenors Highway Safety Association (GHSA) in 2020 found that from 2015 to 2019, Black, 

Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) pedestrian deaths accounted for 48 percent of all pedestrian 

deaths, while only 38 percent of the total U.S. population is BIPOC (see figure 14) (Retting, 2021). 

Fairfax County, Virginia Social and Racial Equity Policy

Fairfax County, Virginia, adopted a social and racial equity policy, titled “One Fairfax” (Fairfax County, 

2017). The policy covers multiple safety sectors and has one goal dedicated to transportation 

defined as “a multimodal transportation system that supports the economic growth, health, 

congestion mitigation, and prosperity goals of Fairfax County and provides accessible mobility 

solutions that are based on the principles associated with sustainability, diversity, and community 

health (Fairfax County, 2017).” The County also included goals for better transportation in the 

County’s strategic plan and mitigation strategies to improve the transportation system and highlight 

accessibility and equity. 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 32

Figure 14. Graphic. Percent of total pedestrian fatalities and population by race, 2015-2019

(Retting, 2021). 

Emerging Data Sources 

Emerging sources of data are constantly evolving. This section highlights some potential emerging data 

sources for transit planning and crash analysis. 

Collision Avoidance Warning System

Collision avoidance warning system is an emerging technology that agencies can use on transit vehicles 

that are designed to detect and prevent potential collisions before the event occurs. Specially, through 

a set of camera detectors installed on the bus, these systems provide coverage of blind zones where 

vulnerable road users may be hidden from the driver’s view and alerts drivers to avoid potential 

collisions. Several transit agencies in Washington State have piloted these technologies on revenue 

service and found during the pilot that no equipped buses were involved in any collisions with bicyclists 

or pedestrians. It should be noted that because these collision events are rare, further tracking of these 

technologies is needed. A powerful biproduct of these technologies is that they integrate with 

Automatic vehicle location (AVL) systems to provide the exact location for where crashes and nearmisses occurred, providing planners with a rich dataset to understand the most conflict prone areas 

along a bus route (Kern, 2017; Lutin et al., 2017; NHTSA, n.d.; Samsara, 2021). 

System Ridership Data

With potentially hundreds or even thousands of transit stops maintained by a single transit agency, it 

may be difficult to know where an agency should focus resources and energies to improve the 

pedestrian and bicyclist experience. Fortunately, ridership data generated using automated passenger 
Tools for Identifying Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety Issues 33

counters (APCs) or electronic registering fareboxes (ERFs) can be applied to prioritize and focus 

resources. An APC is an electronic device that records boarding and alighting data on a transit vehicle. 

Similarly, ERF systems are electronic devices that automatically generate payment records when the fare 

is paid. ERF data is often considered to be more accurate but, unlike APC data, ERFs typically do not 

provide information on where passengers might alight a vehicle. Many APC systems also indicate where 

transit vehicle ramps deploy to help understand transportation needs related to access, or where 

bicyclists board (Florida DOT, 2019). 

Transit Vehicle Location Data 

With the growth of smartphones, transit planners have more data at their fingertips than have ever 

been available before. Many transit vehicles are equipped with AVL technology, which interacts with the 

Global Positioning System satellites to accurately track vehicle location in real-time. Not only can transit 

riders use AVL data (through transit websites and phone applications) to plan their trips by noting 

arrival times and where vehicles are in the network, this data can also be translated into urban analytics, 

providing insight on travel patterns and modal choice on the street level with a few clicks of a mouse. 

Agencies can leverage AVL data to understand key pedestrian and bicyclist corridors along a transit 

network and strategize where agencies should focus their inter-modal conflict management and 

treatment (Streetlight Data, n.d.). 

Tools for Crash Investigations 

Due to evolution in technology, particularly related to video, transit agencies can leverage onboard 

camera recordings and event data recorders to review and reconstruct crashes after they occur and 

subsequently inform potential roadway and operations design improvements (Axiomtek, 2014). Event 

data recorders are devices that can capture (U.S. DOT, 2019): 

• Vehicle speed.

• Whether the brake was activated in the moments before a crash.

• Crash forces at the moment of impact.

• Information about the state of the engine throttle.

• Air bag deployment timing and air bag readiness prior to the crash.

• Whether the vehicle occupant’s seat belt was buckled.

Inward and outward facing cameras can help to improve operational safety, control and reduce risk, and 

strengthen crash investigations (APTA, 2019). FTA suggests that all regional transit authorities (RTAs) 

implement these cameras on rail transit vehicles (FTA, 2020a). 

None of these technologies are mandatory but can be extremely beneficial for agencies in cases of 

disputed crashes and improving overall driver safety—potentially reducing behaviors such as distracted 

driving—and improving an overall understanding of crashes. 

Over the years, devices have improved to be more rugged: successfully handling continuous vibrations 

and all-weather conditions. Camera technology have also improved in pixel size and resolution offering 

better, more detailed video. Agencies can directly integrate video recordings in a cloud-based 

environment, making expensive information technology (IT) equipment unnecessary. Faster internet 

speeds and fiberoptics speeds as well as optimized data formats allow for quicker transfer speeds, 

making this information more accessible than ever. 
 34

 Approaches to 

Enhancing 

Pedestrian and 

Bicyclist Safety 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 35

Transit agencies and roadway owners both play critical roles in improving the safety of 

pedestrians and bicyclists. Beyond conducting analyses and designing transit stops to support 

safer pedestrian and bicyclist access, transit agencies can take internal actions to create 

awareness about safety. Transit agencies and roadway owners can also partner with 

organizations to improve safety conditions for passengers. The following section, Internal 

Actions, discusses strategies transit agencies can implement independently, and with community 

partners, to foster safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Internal Actions

Transit agencies have the authority to independently implement pedestrian and bicyclist safety 

initiatives, such as organizational improvements and modifying services and facilities. Even with limited 

resources, transit agencies can take steps to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access. 

Transit agencies each take different approaches to creating a culture of safety. While methods vary, a 

key theme across many transit agencies is to establish accountability at all levels of the agency so that 

members contribute to a safety mindset (Staes et al., 2017). Another common theme is to apply 

multiple mitigation measures to promote safety. In a survey of transit agencies, most reported that they 

generally take a holistic approach to safety management by developing comprehensive safety 

programs with multiple strategies for addressing safety; they did not rely on a single measure alone to 

prevent safety risks (Staes et al., 2017). One key component to a comprehensive safety program is to 

foster a strong internal culture of safety. Critical elements of a strong safety culture include the 

following:

1. Leadership is clearly committed to safety. 

2. Open and effective communication exists across the organization. 

3. Employees feel personally responsible for safety. 

4. The organization practices continuous learning. 

5. The work environment is safety conscious. 

6. Reporting systems are clearly defined and not used to punish employees. 

7. Decisions demonstrate that safety is prioritized over competing demands. 

8. Employees and the organization work to foster mutual trust. 

9. The organization responds to safety concerns fairly and consistently. 

10. Safety efforts are supported by training and resources. 

These ideas are explored further within the realms of organizational improvements, transit operator 

training programs, internal agency documentation and policies, transit services and facilities, and transit 

vehicle safety features. 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 36

Transit Agency Organizational Improvements 

Transit agencies can make organizational changes that have long-term positive effects on pedestrian

and bicyclist safety and convenience. Some potential actions include the following:

• Work with agency leadership to send a strong and public message about the importance of 

safety, particularly that of reducing crash risks. 

• Review and update policies to make sure that they provide adequate support for improving 

accessibility, safety, and reducing crash risks. 

• Look for opportunities to formalize the relationship with partner agencies to share data, identify 

safety issues, and implement improvements.

• Establish a bus stop coordinator position within the agency to work with local and State 

transportation departments and the public to review transit agency policies and operations. The 

coordinator should work with transit agency staff on route planning, scheduling, transit stop 

facilities, and coordination with other organizations. 

• Work with the bus stop coordinator or other staff person to make them aware of construction 

activities planned for bus stops or areas surrounding the transit facility. The coordinator can 

work with roadway agencies and their contractors to assure that the agency provides adequate, 

accessible alternative routes for pedestrians and bicyclists during construction periods.

• Work with agency staff to elevate the awareness of transportation safety issues—particularly 

those actions or situations that have a higher risk for fatal or severe injury crashes—in their dayto-day responsibilities.

• Provide periodic training on pedestrian and bicyclist safety to agency staff, consultants, and 

operators to improve the quality of transit service and the safety record of bus and train 

operators. 

• Provide transit agency representation on metropolitan and regional planning organization

decision-making boards and committees.

Transit Operator Training Programs 

Transit operator training programs have helped transit agencies reinforce stated safety metrics and 

foster a culture of safety among staff. These can include:

• Offering annual or ongoing refresher safety training, in addition to new bus operator training 

and remedial training. The refresher trainings commonly address safety policies and procedures, 

defensive driving, and distracted driving. The training can also include information specific to 

pedestrian and bicyclist crash risks and roadway designs they might encounter in their operating 

area. Refresher trainings may also reduce driver complacency, which is a hazard. 

• Providing training through a variety of mediums to support different learning styles. Many

transit agencies deliver training through computer-based/online training, video training, 

simulation training, and instructor-led sessions (Staes et al., 2014). 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 37

• Instructing operators on how to assess their individual ability to operate buses and trains and 

report safety concerns that they see on their routes. Operators can face schedule-related 

fatigue, which can slow their response times and increase their odds of being involved in a 

crash. They can also help to improve safety through their firsthand observations. If a transit 

driver frequently notices particular driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist behaviors, they can report it 

and the transit agency can work with roadway owners to mitigate the crash risks. 

King County, Washington Metro Fostering a Culture of Safety

In December of 2017, King County, Washington Metro launched ‘Walk safe,’ a pedestrian awareness 

campaign (King County Metro, 2017). This campaign had educational messages for transit users, but 

also included training for transit operators. Recognizing the difficulties in seeing pedestrians in dark 

conditions, the campaign reminded drivers to be vigilant for crossing pedestrians. Figure 15 includes 

one of the graphics used during the campaign. 

Figure 15. Graphic. King County Metro, ‘Walk Safe’ campaign (King County Metro, 2017).*

*Graphic created by Doug Hansen, King County Metro
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 38

Internal Agency Documentation and Policies

Many transit agencies already have a written safety policy or similar type of document that states the 

agency’s safety goals and procedures to achieve those goals. A survey of 30 transit agencies in 2012

sought to determine who had this type of documentation. Of the respondents, 28 responded 

affirmatively and two abstained (Goodwill et al., 2012). In more recent years, the prominence of 

crashes—particularly pedestrian and bicyclist crashes—has resulted in increased awareness of safety 

concerns. Transit agencies and roadway owners can build off established safety programs and 

reevaluate their agency’s documentation and policies to better understand and formalize actions that 

improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Some examples of potential improvements include: 

• Collect an inventory of assets, along with a condition assessment of each, per the 2016

requirement by the FTA for transit agencies to develop a transit asset management (TAM) plan

(FTA, n.d.

*

). Enhancements to the inventory data can also be combined with transit station audits 

so that pedestrian and bicyclist safety and accessibility improvement needs can be identified 

and prioritized. 

• Incorporate pedestrian and bicyclist features into standard plans and standard designs for 

transit stops, stations, and other transit facilities. Include these features in cost estimates and 

programming details from project conception through construction and maintenance.

* The requirements for transit operators to develop a TAM plan are found at 49 CFR 625.25.

Omnitrans Transit Operator Training Programs

Omnitrans, the transit provider for the San Bernardino Valley, has been recognized as a leader in the 

world of transit safety. Notably, the agency received APTA’s 2019 Bus Safety and Security Excellence 

Award for creating an amateur radio service and placing an emphasis on technological 

improvements to foster a better safety culture within the agency (Perrero, 2019). Among a number 

of other items aimed at further improving safety, Omnitrans placed a focus on transit operator 

training. 

In 2014, Omnitrans began training employees with a bus simulator purchased through a Workforce 

Development grant and Partnership at California State University, San Bernardino. The simulator 

allows trainees to experience a variety of scenarios, conditions, and hazards. Between 60 and 70 

operators per year can learn or practice safe driving habits and behavior without ever hitting the 

road. Additionally, all operators are provided with Safety Management Systems training, in line with 

the Public Transportation Agency Safety Plan, for greater understanding of the principles and 

components. 

Beyond initial and reoccurring training, Omnitrans places a high value on maintaining a culture of 

safety post training. The agency does so through strong safety standards, recognition of good 

practice, and a rewards system. Omnitrans believes that safety begins internally, and that safety is a 

goal worth investing in—through both time and in money. 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 39

• Conduct pedestrian safety audits at transit stops 

and surrounding areas on a regular basis 

(examples provided in chapter 3). 

• Develop or update TOD guidelines to ensure 

accessible pedestrian facility design, including 

sidewalks, pedestrian crossing facilities, and 

warning and wayfinding signs. Frequently, transit 

agencies will partner with local governments who 

are responsible for administering land use laws

and regulations. FTA’s Pilot Program for TOD 

Planning provides examples of ways to develop 

TOD guidelines (FTA, n.d.a).

• Establish agency performance metrics around 

pedestrian and bicyclist safety and accessibility. 

This should use some form of evaluating 

multimodal analysis to account for pedestrian, 

bicyclist, and transit rider impacts beyond traffic 

effects. For new developments, require developers 

to complete a selected form of multimodal 

analysis rather than relying on a traditional traffic 

impact analysis. Transit agencies are also required 

to report safety incidents, including where transit 

vehicles have struck a person or another vehicle 

(FTA, 2021). 

• Consider incorporating incentive and reward 

programs as an additional tool to improve safety.

Incentive programs should be used in conjunction 

with an existing safety management program and 

are especially effective with management support

(Staes et al., 2017). According to the National 

Safety Council, incentives can motivate and engage employees through positive and proactive 

reinforcement, rather than penalizing employees after a mistake is made (Rojas, 2018). This is 

especially important as transit operators typically maneuver large vehicles and if they were in a 

crash with a pedestrian or bicyclist, if could lead to a severe or fatal injury. 

• Encourage transit operators to reach out about potential crash issues—whether it has to do with 

transit routing and vehicles or roadway user behavior, design, or operations. 

• Develop a Complete Streets policy or guidance document that features information on how to 

plan, design, and implement a Complete Street. The document may include, but is not limited 

to, elements such as design guidance, prioritization methods, equity considerations, 

implementation procedures, and evaluation strategies. 

Transit Asset Management 

Plans 

“Every agency must develop a TAM plan if 

it owns, operates, or manages capital assets 

used to provide public transportation and 

receives federal financial assistance under 

49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 as a recipient or 

subrecipient. Each transit provider must 

designate an Accountable Executive (49 

CFR 625.5) to ensure appropriate resources 

for implementing the agency's TAM plan 

and the Transit Agency Safety Plan.

Each TAM plan should:

• Outline how people, processes, and 

tools come together to address 

asset management policy and goals. 

• Provide accountability and visibility 

for furthering understanding of 

leveraging asset management 

practices. 

• Support planning, budgeting, and 

communications to internal and 

external stakeholders.”

- FTA website on transit asset 

management plans (FTA, n.d.b).
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 40

City of Denver, Colorado: Improving Transit Safety & Connections

Denver Moves: Transit Plan is Denver’s first citywide 

transit plan (City of Denver, 2019). The plan creates 

a local transit vision and framework for improving 

the quality of transit options in order to make 

transit more reliable, frequent, and convenient. The 

plan recommends: 

• Investments in key corridors in Denver that 

will result in high quality and reliable transit.

• A network of frequent transit service 

corridors, to provide service that arrives 

more often, all day, every day.

• Improvements in pedestrian and bicycle

infrastructure and amenities to make it 

easier and safer for people walking and 

biking to get to transit.

• Promoting transit supportive land use and 

developments instills a “sense of place” at 

transit stations and stops in Denver.

• Continued support for affordable fare 

programs, fare payment technology to make 

transit more affordable easier to use, and 

programs that promote and encourage the 

use of transit. Figure 16. Graphic. Denver's big moves

and strategies. (City of Denver, 2019)

Part of what drove the plan implementation is that the current transportation system does not meet 

the City’s needs. The number of employees traveling in and out of Denver is increasing, as is 

congestion. The City also recognizes that transportation options influence where people live with 

more people wanting to move to a city if it had more and better options for getting around. This 

also supports a shift in driving where younger adults are driving less and older adults are looking to 

age-in-place. 

Bicyclist and pedestrian access to transit stops and stations is oftentimes a deciding factor in 

choosing transit and in Denver, can be challenging. According to the plan, 9 percent of the sidewalks 

within a 1⁄2 mile of light rail and a 1⁄4 mile of bus stops are missing, and 28 percent are deficient in 

width (i.e., less than 4-feet wide).

The Denver Moves: Transit Plan vision and implementation strategies and actions, as summarized in 

figure 16, help support ongoing growth and local mobility needs by improving transit and 

connecting more people to more places, sustaining Denver as a healthy and vibrant community. 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 41

Transit Services and Facilities

While transit agencies are reliant on State and local roadway owners to make changes to the roadway 

network, transit agencies can typically modify their services and facilities with just an agreement from 

the roadway owner. However, some transit agencies may require a permit from the roadway owner for 

the installation of any improvements. Alternatively, sometimes the improvements fall within the transit 

agency’s property or an easement with a private property owner. These types of changes have the 

potential to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access.

Service improvements may include:

• Changing bus routes and stop locations to reduce walking and cycling distances or facilitate 

transfer. 

• Improving coordination between bus and rail schedules to allow for easier transfers and shorter 

waiting time. 

Facility modifications may include:

• Moving bus stops to shorten walking distances, reduce street crossings, or improve safety at 

street crossings for pedestrians accessing transit at each stop. 

• Improving signage, seating, shelter, or lighting at bus stops. 

• Increasing maintenance frequency and thoroughness. 

Transit agencies can make several modifications to their services and facilities that can improve safe 

pedestrian and bicyclist access. These include locating bus stops convenient to signalized crosswalks, 

establishing off-street transfer centers, and positioning transit amenities such as shelters to ensure clear 

sightlines for oncoming motorists.

Transit agencies also provide guidance to local governments and developers on how to enhance 

pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit, as well as how to incorporate transit within developments to 

shorten walk distances. Examples of recently updated transit agency design manuals and guidebooks 

include:

• Capital Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2020).

• Maryland Transit Administration (2019). 

• Monterey Salinas Transit (2020). 

• San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (2018). 

In some cases, transit agencies establish partnerships to implement their guidelines, such as the 

Chicago Area Regional Transportation Authority’s Access to Transit program (see case study for more 

information). 

Refer to chapter 5 for additional detail on specific engineering modifications for transit facilities. 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 42

Chicago Area Regional Transportation Authority’s (RTA) 

Access to Transit

In 2012, the Chicago area’s RTA introduced its Access to Transit program to provide funding support 

for small scale projects that improve pedestrian and bicyclist access to transit, such as those shown 

in figure 17. Municipalities and counties that have plans that specifically recommend bicyclist and/or 

pedestrian access improvements to transit are eligible to apply for funding through this competitive 

program. To be eligible, applicants must demonstrate that their proposed projects will lead to 

increased ridership, improved access to existing transit services, and will contribute to reduce vehicle 

emissions (RTA, 2021). Communities with lower tax bases/median incomes can apply for funding for 

Phase 1 engineering for access to transit projects.

RTA uses a combination of local and Federal Congestion Mitigation Air Quality funds for the Access 

to Transit program. To date, the program has supported 28 projects totaling $13 million in funding

(RTA, 2021). Projects range from bus stop improvements to pedestrian crossings to bicycle parking. 

Figure 17. Photograph. A before and after photo of an RTA Access to Transit project that 

included the addition of a crosswalk, walk signal, and curb cuts to improve access to a stop 

on PACE's Harlem Ave. route in Palos Heights, IL (RTA, 2021). 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 43

Transit Vehicle Safety Features

Advances in motorized vehicle safety features have been rapidly integrated into our daily lives. Agencies 

have incorporated similar advances into transit vehicles. The following are some examples of design 

features that can reduce the risk of collisions with pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Bus warning lighting – additional lighting including strobes and light-emitting diode (LED) light bars 

either on the sides or front/top that light when the bus begins moving or is turning (Pecheux et al., 

2008). 

Bus turning announcements – bus annunciator suppliers include a pedestrian warning system where 

the bus announces through exterior speakers when it is making a turn, such as, “Caution! Bus is turning

(Clever Devices, 2021)!”

Rail features – between-car-barriers, such as those shown in figure 18, are designed to protect visually 

disabled passengers from mistaking the space between railcars as a doorway and inadvertently 

stepping off the platform between cars and falling to the track bed (FTA, 2019). 

Figure 18. Photograph. Examples of between-car-barriers for light rail (FTA, 2019). 

Collision avoidance and blind spot detection – many personal vehicles are already equipped with this 

type of technology that alerts drivers to a potential collision or object within the vehicle’s blind spot. 

Transit vehicles are similarly becoming equipped with these as well. This can aid the transit operator in 

preventing crashes, particularly with pedestrians and bicyclists who are less visible than larger, 

motorized vehicles. 

Transit vehicle security systems – these systems can include video cameras, covert microphones, 

silent alarms, and AVL to monitor and respond to situations onboard vehicles and along transit routes.

These technologies can be used in combination to pinpoint a vehicle’s location during an incident and 

assist in providing a real-time or recorded comprehensive view of an incident (U.S. DOT, n.d.). 

Partnerships 

Partnership, coordination, and cooperation between various organizations in the public and private 

spheres are critical to improving the safety and efficiency of a transit system or broadening its appeal to 

a wider base. Due to the nature of existing planning, governing, and economic structures, planning 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 44

network extensions or any other changes to transit operations likely involves local, regional, State, and 

possibly Federal coordination—not to mention input from the public. When new development is 

planned, either based on or including transit networks, public/private partnerships are often sought 

after to help fund projects, improve efficiency, or generate interest from the public. The following 

describes some opportunities for partnerships among public agencies and public-private organizations 

that will enhance pedestrian and bicyclist safety when accessing transit. 

Public Agency Partnerships 

Partnerships between transit operators and local, regional, State, and Tribal agencies are critical to 

transit planning for various reasons. From a policy perspective, there is an inherent need for partnership 

between transit operators and various levels of government. Since 2016, the FTA and FHWA require 

transit operators to use a performance-based planning approach and develop a TAM plan (FTA, 

2020b1

). Ultimately, the development of a TAM necessitates partnership and coordination between 

transit agencies and different levels of government, particularly metropolitan planning organizations 

and State DOTs (FTA, n.d.2

). 

1 The requirements for a performance-based approach are found at 23 CFR Part 450.206(c) and the requirements for transit operators to 

develop a TAM plan are found at 49 CFR Part 625.25.

2 The requirements for transit operators to coordinate with metropolitan, statewide and non-metropolitan planning processes are found at 49 

CFR Part 625.45(e).

Community Pedestrian Safety Committee – Howard County, 

Maryland Transit & Pedestrian Safety Advisory Group

In 2021, Howard County, Maryland’s County Council established a Transit and Pedestrian Advisory 

Group to advocate for pedestrians and transit users, directly advising the County’s Office of 

Transportation (Howard County, 2021). The group, per County law, is comprised of a member of the 

Multimodal Transportation Board, two Howard County students, two Howard County residents (one a 

paratransit passenger and another a fixed-route passenger), two people selected by the Howard 

County Public School System (one of whom must be a high-school principal), and one representative 

from the following six possible organizations (Howard County, 2021):

1. The Howard County Association of Community Services.

2. The Commission on Aging. 

3. The Commission on Disability Issues.

4. The Howard County Department of Recreation and Parks.

5. The Howard County Police Department.

6. The Howard County Council.

The group of selected citizens is required to meet at least four times each year, two of which must be

joint sessions with the Bicycle Advisory Group and two which must be held separately. During the 

meetings, the group is required to designate time for public comments on relevant issues (Howard 

County, 2021).
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 45

As transit operators themselves do not own the roadways, partnerships with local municipalities or 

regional agencies are necessary to prioritize space for transit vehicles (Transit Center, 2018a). 

Furthermore, changes in land-use over time can generate the need for more transit in particular areas. 

The reintroduction of TOD in many areas involves coordination between transit agencies and local 

planning agencies to ensure transit provides service to these developments. In rural and Tribal areas, 

public transit is crucial for people to reach basic services like hospitals, post offices, or voting precincts

(Kaseko et al., 2014). Partnerships with local municipalities are also important for overcoming the “firstmile/last-mile” challenge, as the two can work together to develop better bicyclist and pedestrian 

infrastructure to connect with existing transit networks (Advocacy Advance, 2014). 

MaineDOT Pedestrian Safety Campaigns and Coordination with 

Transit Agencies

MaineDOT has been working with transit agencies around Maine to improve safety through its 

Heads Up program. MaineDOT is using the program to address safety through:

• Education and behavior change – involving the media, providing information, hosting local 

forums, and conducting outreach to specific groups.

• Engineering – improving pavement markings, traffic signals, and signage.

• Enforcement – both positive and punitive.

One aspect of the education component involved messaging on transit vehicles. MaineDOT met with 

the transit agencies, who agreed to place the messaging on the buses if MaineDOT printed the 

posters. As a result, transit vehicles throughout the State included messaging on pedestrian safety.

Figure 19. Photograph. Two examples of MaineDOT pedestrian safety posters on transit 

vehicles (VHB, 2019).*

*These images are not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project. 

 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 46

Metro Transit Minneapolis – Better Bus Stops

Beginning in 2014, Metro Transit Minneapolis partnered with a host of local organizations to deploy 

the Better Bus Stops project (Farrington & Schwartz, 2017). The purpose was twofold: invest in 

capital infrastructure and engage with the community. For the capital investments, the project 

sought to improve bus stop shelters, shelter lighting, heaters, and pedestrian access. Figure 20

shows a bus stop improved through this project, with solar power added to improve lighting. The 

Community Engagement Team was comprised of various local partners to reach underrepresented 

communities in planning, decision making, and implementation processes on and in proximity to 

transit-oriented corridors (Farrington & Schwartz, 2017). Focusing on areas of concentrated poverty 

according to 2010 Census results, the final area of emphasis included 28 Minneapolis 

neighborhoods. 

The main goal of the public engagement process was to empower the community to drive the 

decision-making process. The team did so by developing a set of ‘essential questions’ to determine 

how and where to install improvements, desired features, historical significance of nearby structures, 

the aesthetics and orientation of shelters, and a place for miscellaneous feedback for Metro Transit 

to improve regional equity. Beyond these questions, a variety of other methods were used to 

provide information and acquire feedback: online file sharing, Q&A sessions, information sessions, 

bus stop facilities games, various surveys, tours, and other pop-up engagement sessions (Farrington 

& Schwartz, 2017). 

By the end of the project, Metro Transit deemed the community engagement portion of the project 

a success, and the goals set out at the beginning were met. In total, an estimated 7,000 people 

participated throughout the engagement (Farrington & Schwartz, 2017). Metro Transit closed the 

engagement period with greater knowledge of what the community needed, and the project led to

better transparency, documentation, and trust which they hope to create opportunities in the future.

Figure 20. Photograph. A Metro Transit stop, improved through the Better Bus Stops

initiative (Farrington & Schwartz, 2017).
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 47

Public/Private Partnerships 

The synergy of public/private partnerships can oftentimes lead to developments that are attractive to 

residents who might choose to live, work, or shop in these areas. To facilitate efficient and safe transit 

operations, it is critical that transit agencies be given an opportunity to weigh in on site design for 

private developments prior to finalizing project design. 

To achieve this, land review authorities, depending on applicable laws and regulations, may be able to

use the following tools to enable collaboration with transit agencies:

• Give transit agencies an opportunity to weigh in on development design as part of site plan 

review. For example, the City of San Diego mandates that copies of any site plan requiring a 

discretionary permit from the city be sent to the transit agency for review, thus allowing the 

transit agency to influence the project’s design and request rights-of-way for transit facilities.

• Invite transit agencies to help develop design guidelines and standards for developers.

• Invite transit agencies to help formulate TOD guidelines. Transit agencies can help promote TOD 

through many means, for example, by using agency-held land, underwriting land costs, assisting 

in land assembly, providing financial incentives, and working out shared parking agreements

(Hess and Lombardi, 2004). 

• Develop transit accessibility checklists.

• Work with transit agencies to provide technical assistance estimating impact fee or developer 

fee reductions due to the inclusion of transit and pedestrian-oriented design features.

One potential byproduct of these developments is that local residents may not feel as comfortable 

accessing the transit facilities and may feel like they are trespassing on a private development. For these 

developments to serve the public—and they are by nature of being centered around transit access—it 

should be a clear and stated goal of the project that all feel welcomed and comfortable using walking 

and biking through the development to use the transit facilities. In San Francisco, the Bay Area Rapid 

Transit’s (BART’s) TOD Guidelines state that, “A successful, pedestrian friendly station area should be 

comfortable and inviting to the surrounding community (Thorne-Lyman, 2017).”

To this end, some agencies are developing Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (eTOD) plans. As 

the Chicago eTOD plan explains, 

“Equitable TOD (eTOD) is development that enables all people regardless of income, race, 

ethnicity, age, gender, immigration status or ability to experience the benefits of dense, 

mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented development near transit hubs. eTOD elevates and prioritizes 

investments and policies that close the socioeconomic gaps between neighborhoods that are 

predominately people of color and those that are majority white. eTOD projects and 

processes elevate community voice in decision making processes and in realizing 

community-focused benefits such as affordable housing, public health, strong local 

businesses, and environmental sustainability, to name a few. When centered on racial 

inclusion and community wealth building, eTOD can be a driver of positive transformation for 

more vibrant, prosperous, and resilient neighborhoods connected to opportunities 

throughout the city and region (City of Chicago, n.d.).”
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 48

Danbury, Connecticut Transit Oriented Development

The New England Chapter of Congress for New Urbanism recently awarded the Danbury, 

Connecticut TOD Plan with its 2020 Urbanism Award (Center for New Urbanism New England 

Chapter, 2020). The Danbury project, as shown in figure 21, represents how innovative land use, 

urban design, economic, and transportation planning can revitalize a downtown area. The plan for 

Danbury’s downtown includes an enhanced multimodal transit and rail station that will address 

current and future bus operator needs, create synergies between the bus and rail systems, and 

support TOD and downtown revitalization.

Figure 21. Graphic. Map of the Danbury TOD Plan with priority pedestrian-friendly streets 

(Goody Clancy).*

* This image is not publicly available. Goody Clancy provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project. 
Approaches to Enhancing Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety 49

Mobility as a Service

Public/private partnerships can also provide agencies with the opportunity to take advantage of new 

services, such as Mobility as a Service (MaaS). MaaS can be thought of as a “tool”, but at its heart, 

involves coordination among transportation services and options, including public and private entities. 

The definition of MaaS continues to evolve, but one used by the United Nations captures its breadth as:

“...a user-centric transportation management system, using intelligent mobility distribution 

systems and IoT (Internet of Things) applications, in which all transport modes service operators 

and infrastructure providers are connected under a single platform, which supplies mobility 

options to travelers providing real time traffic information, service conditions and operator 

arrangements, and delivering on-line ticketing and payment options (Dimitriou et al., 2020)”. 

U.S. transit systems are beginning to use MaaS to offer their customers more options to address their 

complete trips between origin and destination. Several transit systems are expanding the use of their 

fare media to include bicycle share, such as Los Angeles Metro’s TAP card, which is valid for payment 

across 26 regional transit providers and for Metro Bike Share (TAP, n.d.). Transit systems are also 

partnering with private software providers to offer comprehensive trip planning and fare payment for 

complete trips. An example is Kansas City’s RideKC’s partnership with Transit App (RideKC, 2021). 

RideKC’s passengers can also use RideKC Bike bikeshare, and can plan and pay for their complete trips 

using the Transit App. 
 50 

 Design and 

Operational 

Measures 
Design and Operational Measures 51 

There are a variety of actions that transit agencies and their partner organizations can implement 

to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists when accessing transit. These actions include 

engineering (physical infrastructure) and operational efforts.

The design of sidewalks, curb ramps, bicyclist facilities, shared paths, and transit stops contribute to a 

passenger’s experience and both actual safety (tied to crashes) and perceived safety (makes people feel 

safer) on the transit system. Well-connected sidewalks installed in areas with regular transit service 

provide a safer option for transit patrons as opposed to walking in the street while traveling to or from 

a stop or station. Connected and continuous bicyclist facilities provide visibility at intersections, 

incorporate transit access, and are designed for the intended user profiles. In addition, transit agencies 

and roadway owners can improve roadway and transit crossing safety with an appropriate combination 

of facilities, such as marked crosswalks, pedestrian refuge islands, warning signs, pedestrian signals, and 

potentially grade separation.

The following design and operational measures and improvements are categorized into two themes: 

1. Transit access – designing the pedestrian and bicyclist routes to transit facilities. 

2. Transit stop/station – locating and designing transit stops and stations to provide safe and 

accessible facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists. 

These distinctions are intended to help transit agencies consider the barriers and safety issues for 

pedestrians and bicyclists when traveling to and from the stop, as well as the experience at the stop, 

whether transferring routes, waiting, or accessing another mode. Routes that provide transit access 

should incorporate Complete Streets elements, while the location of transit stops and stations should 

consider the safety and comfort of people using transit services. 

Transit Access

Safe access to transit services is paramount to supporting transit use and multimodal networks. 

Chapter 1 noted pedestrians may be expected to travel 1⁄2 mile and bicyclists may be expected to travel 

3 miles to reach a transit stop or station, though this may vary based on facilities, individual speed, and 

those with unique mobility needs. There are also emerging transportation services and micromobility 

technologies such as scooters, e-bikeshare, and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) to support 

first-mile/last-mile access to transit. Chapter 5 explores the design of transit stops and stations in more 

detail. Key components for safely accessing transit include inclusion of Complete Streets features into 

sidewalk and bikeway facility design, transit stop integration, and roadway and rail crossings.

Pedestrian Facility Design

Good pedestrian facility design should account for the needs of all potential users, including all ages, 

genders, and abilities. When applied appropriately, this design concept known as “universal design” 

ensures the built environment is usable and can be shared by all people, thus eliminating the need for 

specialized design. 

The U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) ADA Title II regulations require that a public entity’s newly 

constructed facilities be made accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent that 
Design and Operational Measures 52 

it is not structurally impracticable to do so (28 CFR 35.151(a)). The DOJ's regulations also require that, 

when an existing facility is altered, the altered facility be made accessible to and usable by individuals 

with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible (28 CFR 35.151(b)). The U.S. Department of 

Transportation's (DOT) regulations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) 

include similar requirements for entities that receive Federal financial assistance from DOT (49 CFR Part 

27). 

In 2010, the DOJ adopted enforceable accessibility standards under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

titled “2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design” (U.S. DOJ, 2010). These standards incorporate the 

2004 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (2004 ADAAG) issued by the U.S. Access Board. The standards 

primarily address accessibility requirements for buildings and sites, but they also apply to newly 

constructed or altered curb ramps at intersections (28 CFR 35.151(i)). Recipients of Federal financial 

assistance from DOT must also comply with DOT's Standards for Accessible Transportation Facilities, 

which require placement of detectable warnings on curb ramps (49 CFR 27.3(b); 49 CFR Part 37, Appx. 

A).

In 2011, the U.S. Access Board published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal 

Register to invite comment on the Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the 

Public Right-of-Way (U.S. Access Board, 2011). The intent of this effort was to provide comprehensive 

accessibility guidelines for pedestrian facilities in the public right-of-way that would ultimately be 

adopted as enforceable standards by the DOT and DOJ. The Access Board published a Supplemental 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2013 to add draft guidelines for shared use paths, (i.e., paths serving 

a transportation purpose and used by pedestrians, bicyclists, and sometimes others)(U.S. Access Board, 

2013). The proposed PROWAG, including the shared use path provisions, have not been finalized or 

adopted as of this writing and are not enforceable federal requirements. In the absence of enforceable 

standards for most pedestrian facilities in the public rights-of-way, public entities have some degree of 

flexibility in determining how they will comply with the general accessibility obligation under title II of 

the ADA and Section 504. Transit agencies should consult with their local and State governments to 

determine if they have adopted the proposed PROWAG as a local standard with respect to pedestrian 

facilities in the public right-of-way. 

While keeping the legal framework for accessible design in mind, transit agencies may find the 

following resources useful to consider for pedestrian facility design:

• Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context 

Sensitive Approach (Henderson et al., 2010). 

• AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (AASHTO, 2021). 

• AASHTO A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 7th Edition (commonly referred 

to as the “Green Book”) (AASHTO, 2018). 

Creating safe and accessible places for pedestrians to travel along roadways can encourage more 

people to use transit systems. It is critical to ensure that sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways have 

appropriate width, surface, buffer (i.e., separation from motor vehicle traffic), lighting, and signage 

along roadways as described in the following sections. 
Design and Operational Measures 53 

Sidewalk Width 

Sidewalks should be wide enough to accommodate the expected levels of pedestrian traffic. Narrow 

sidewalks that cannot accommodate the volume of foot traffic may encourage pedestrians to walk in 

the roadway or take alternate routes, increasing the potential for conflict with motor vehicles. Although 

the proposed PROWAG suggests a minimum clear width (i.e., lateral space available for pedestrian 

travel for the length of a corridor) of 4 feet for sidewalks in the public right-of-way, it is desirable to 

provide a sidewalk clear width of at least 5 feet to accommodate two people walking side-by-side or 

two wheelchair users to pass each other, as shown in figure 22. 

Wider sidewalks can help 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, increasing their crash risk. 

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 undesirable location to reach a sidewalk with less traffic. To 

make the most of the width available, street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash cans), utilities,

and street trees should be located out of the pedestrian path and instead placed in the buffer zone (i.e., 

between the street and the sidewalk) or in the frontage zone (i.e., between the sidewalk and right-ofway line). 

Figure 22. Graphic. Space needed for two wheelchairs passing (Goughnour et al., 2020).

Sidewalk Surface

The full clear width of a sidewalk should be firm, stable, and slip resistant (U.S. Access Board, 2011, 

proposed PROWAG R302.7). The accessible route of a sidewalk should be clear of obstructions, 

including overhanging branches, utility poles, and signs (U.S. Access Board, 2011, proposed PROWAG 

R210 and R402). 
Design and Operational Measures 54 

Sidewalk Buffer

A buffer is a space provided between the pedestrian walkway and the vehicular travel lanes. This buffer 

enhances both pedestrian comfort and safety. Depending on the type of buffer, it can separate 

pedestrians from passing vehicles that can present issues such as large mirrors that overhang onto the 

curb, wind, and splashing water during rain events. The buffer can be landscaped with materials such as 

grass, flowers, shrubs, or trees, which also provide shade and visually narrow the roadway for drivers, 

potentially encouraging slower speeds (Ewing, n.d.; Landis et al., 2001). Similar to trees, on-street 

parking can also serve as a buffer between moving vehicles and pedestrians and can also encourage 

slower vehicular traffic. 

Additional Sidewalk Considerations

There are several other additional considerations when designing sidewalks, including the following:

• Driveway crossing design is important for providing safe, accessible sidewalks. The full sidewalk 

width should be carried across driveways with minimal change in grade or cross slope. Reducing 

corner radii encourages drivers to turn more slowly, allowing them to see and stop for crossing 

pedestrians. 

• Ample, consistent, and uninterrupted lighting creates a safe and secure environment for all 

pedestrians, including customers accessing transit (FHWA, 2021). The FHWA Lighting Handbook

includes more information about lighting considerations for crosswalks and railroad grade 

crossings, among other locations (Lutkevich, McLean, and Cheung, 2012). The supplementary 

Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crossing illustrates lighting layouts at 

intersection and midblock locations (Gibbons et al., 2008). 

• Directional signage installed around heavily-used transit stops helps direct passengers to local 

points of interest. Signage scaled for pedestrians may be more easily seen by people walking. 

Graphic elements can help pedestrians to better understand the intent, even those who cannot 

read English. 

• Visual obstructions, such as parked cars, large shrubs, or utility boxes can impair the ability of 

drivers to see pedestrians at crosswalks. Avoiding installing these obstructions, or relocating 

them, will improve driver-pedestrian sight distance.

• Curb ramps and detectable warning surfaces are needed to provide an accessible connection 

between sidewalks and streets. 

• Accessible pedestrian signals (APS) provide information on pedestrian signal phases to blind or 

low-vision pedestrians in audible and vibrotactile formats. These devices indicate when to cross 

at signalized intersections.

Bicyclist Facility Design

Planning and designing a comprehensive multimodal network to provide access to transit includes 

considering the variety of types of bicyclists, such as those shown in figure 6, and their needs. Bicyclist

facilities that are designed to reduce level of traffic stress and serve the broadest population of rider— 

through vehicle speed regulation and separation from traffic— have been shown to increase cycling 
Design and Operational Measures 55 

rates by 5 to 15 percent (Schultheiss et al., 2019). Transit agencies also benefit from integration of 

bicyclist facilities into transit stop and station design; APTA reports that agencies can help manage 

parking demand, build customer goodwill, expand transit reach, increase ridership, and create safer and 

more convenient connections to fixed route service when integrating bicyclist facilities (APTA, 2018). 

There are several considerations for transit agencies to accommodate bicyclists in stop design and 

multimodal and route network planning. This section explores those considerations; however, the

following documents provide additional information on the bicyclist facility planning, design 

specifications, and integration with other roadway users: 

• FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide (Goodman et al., 2015). 

• FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide (Schultheiss et al., 2019).

• FTA Manual on Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections to Transit (FTA, 2017). 

• AASHTO's Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (AASHTO, 2012). 

Facility Type Considerations

When transit agencies and roadway owners coordinate on the placement of transit routes, stops, and 

bicyclist facilities, the transportation network will better serve the needs of transit users. Limited rightof-way, on-street parking, loading zones, motor vehicle and transit vehicle speeds, transit service 

frequency, and driveways are common constraints to the location of both transit stops and bicyclist 

facilities. For example, it is recommended that mixing zones for transit stops and separated bicycle lanes 

only occur where four buses per hour or fewer serve the stop to reduce bus/bicyclist conflicts and 

support an uninterrupted facility (Goodman et al., 2015). Design decisions for both modes will affect 

transit passenger and bicyclist comfort, accessibility, and safety.

Transit agencies and roadway owners can better accommodate the needs of bicyclist and transit riders 

when they consider the interaction of the bikeway type, intended bicycle design user, and how to 

mitigate potential conflicts between transit vehicles and bicycles. Because the default position for both 

transit stops and bicyclist facilities is against the curb, managing interactions through signage, 

pavement markings, and separation is key to reducing conflicts. Table 3 illustrates that as the bicycle 

design user expands to include more potential users, there is a greater need for separation for both the 

bicyclist facility and the transit stop (e.g., separated bicycle lane and floating stop). 
Design and Operational Measures 56 

Table 3. Bikeway type and transit interactions (adapted from Schultheiss et al., 2019). 

Bikeway Type Design User

Potential Conflicts 

with Transit 

(Location and Behavior) Reduce Transit Conflicts

Shared Lane • Highly 

confident users

• Entire segment/travel 

lane

• Transit stop areas

• “Leapfrog” passing

• Limited visibility

• Improve signage

• Reduce road speeds

• Evaluate potential for 

dedicated bicyclist 

facilities

• Evaluate parallel routes 

for transit or bicyclists

Traditional 

Bicycle lane

• Highly 

confident users

• Somewhat 

confident users

• Potential encroachment 

into bicycle lane

• Entering and exiting 

bicycle lane at transit 

stop locations

• “Leapfrog” passing

• Modify pavement 

markings to indicate 

mixing zone

• Evaluate potential for 

buffered or separated 

bicyclist facilities

• Evaluate parallel routes 

for transit or bicyclists

Buffered 

Bicycle lane

• Highly 

confident users

• Somewhat 

confident users

• Entering and exiting 

bicycle lane at transit 

stop locations

• “Leapfrog” passing

• Evaluate the need for a 

floating transit stop 

versus mixing zone

• Evaluate potential for 

vertical separation of 

bicyclist facility

Separated 

Bicycle lane and 

Two-way 

Separated 

Bicycle Lanes

• Highly 

confident users 

• Somewhat 

confident users 

• Interested but 

concerned 

users 

• Bicyclist conflicts with 

boarding and alighting 

transit users

• Implement floating 

transit stop

• Route bikeway behind 

transit stop

• Implement shared

transit bicycle lane

stop
Design and Operational Measures 57 

Shared Bus-Bicycle Lanes

Shared bus-bicycle lanes are lanes reserved for transit vehicles and bicyclists, and they are indicated by 

pavement markings and signage. While shared bus-bicycle lanes can provide lateral separation for 

bicyclists from general traffic and expand the on-street bikeway network, NACTO reports that they are 

not high comfort bicyclist facilities and are not suitable for routes with high bus volumes or bus lanes 

with operating speeds above 20 miles per hour (mph) (NACTO, 2016). Pavement markings and signage 

should clearly indicate permitted users, and special attention should be paid to transit vehicle and 

bicyclist passing areas near stops.

The City of Chicago launched a pilot project in 2018 and 2019 to create dedicated bus-bicycle lanes on 

Halsted Avenue to decrease transit delay and accommodate bicyclist travel during bridge 

reconstruction (Chicago Transit Authority, 2019). The City and Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) partnered 

to install plastic bollards and pavement markings to create the 1⁄2-mile shared lane. Transit service 

improved and surveys of bicycle users found that bicyclists felt safer riding in the shared lane compared 

to prior conditions and most felt generally safe interacting with transit vehicles.

Roadway Crossings

Pedestrians and bicyclists often cross the road when 

traveling to and from transit stops or transferring to 

other routes. The types of crossing treatments and 

their applications to improve access and reduce crash 

risk are dependent on roadway characteristics, 

intersection layout, and multimodal network facilities. 

This section includes a summary of potential crossing 

enhancements for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Marked Crossings

Marked crossings can include bicycle lane extension 

pavement markings for bicyclists, or crosswalks for 

pedestrians or bicyclists. According to Uniform 

Vehicle Code (UVC) § 1-118, a model example of 

State and local laws, the definition of a crosswalk is, 

“That part of a roadway at an intersection 

included within the connections of the lateral 

lines of the sidewalks on opposite sides of the 

highway measured from the curbs, or in the 

absence of curbs, from the edges of the 

traversable roadway; and in the absence of a 

sidewalk on one side of the roadway, the part 

of a roadway included within the extension of 

the lateral lines of the existing sidewalk at 

right angles to the centerline (UVC, 2000).”

Uniform Vehicle Code

The basis for many of our traffic laws is the 

UVC (UVC, 2000). The UVC is a set of motor 

vehicle laws, originally designed by the 

National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws 

and Ordinances, as a comprehensive 

example for individual State motor vehicle 

and traffic laws (National Committee on 

Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, 1992). 

The UVC was born out of the need for 

uniformity in traffic regulation throughout 

the United States. Although many State and 

local governments have adopted the UVC as 

the basis for legislation and regulation 

related to the operation of motor vehicles on 

public roadways, some State and local 

statutes may vary. It is the responsibility of 

every road and transit agency to know and 

follow the applicable laws when designing 

for pedestrian and bicyclist access to its 

stations. Oftentimes these laws provide 

minimum requirements, and it is incumbent 

on the designers and planners to understand 

the flexibility to plan and create facilities 

beyond the minimum design standards to 

best meet the needs of their users. 
Design and Operational Measures 58 

State and local agencies may not use this exact UVC definition, and it is not required under FHWA 

regulations, but many agencies have similar laws regarding unmarked crosswalks. Although 

intersections may have legal crossing locations without a marked crosswalk, crosswalk pavement 

markings can be used to indicate preferred crossing areas for pedestrians and to help make drivers 

more aware of pedestrians crossing the roadway. Marked crosswalks are commonly denoted by 

standard crosswalk markings (two parallel lines) or high-visibility crosswalk markings (thick white bars 

parallel to the direction of travel, both “continental” and “ladder” style crosswalks). Other crosswalk 

treatments include stamped asphalt or pavers or raised pavement surfaces (raised crosswalks). It is 

critical that drivers approaching a crosswalk can easily see the crosswalk treatment. High-visibility 

crosswalks are the most visible to drivers and have demonstrated a 48-percent reduction in pedestrian 

crashes when compared to previous parallel line markings (Chen et al., 2013).

Accessible curb ramps should be provided at both ends of crosswalks wherever the roadway crossing is 

at a different level than the adjacent sidewalk (U.S. DOJ, 2010). Bicycle lane extension markings can be 

used to visually denote the bicycle lane routing through the intersection. Within signalized 

intersections, “No Turn on Red” (MUTCD R10-11 sign) restrictions or channelizing devices (FHWA, 2009, 

MUTCD Chapter 3H) such as flexible delineators or tubular markers, should be used to prevent vehicles 

from entering the bicyclist queuing area. 

Marked crosswalks and bicycle lane extensions are commonly used to identify preferred locations for 

crossings. However, in many cases, particularly on multi-lane roads with high speeds and traffic 

volumes, marked crosswalks alone are not sufficient to assure safe crossings. MUTCD provisions state 

that:

New marked crosswalks alone “should not be installed across uncontrolled roadways where the speed 

limit exceeds 40 mph and either: 

• The roadway has four or more lanes of travel without a raised median or pedestrian refuge 

island and an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater: or

• The roadway has four or more lanes of travel with a raised median or pedestrian refuge 

island and an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater (FHWA, 2009, p. 384).” 

Where these conditions exist, additional measures should be included to reduce traffic speeds, shorten 

crossing distances, enhance driver awareness of the crossing, or otherwise provide active warning of 

pedestrian presence (FHWA, 2009). 

The FHWA Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian Program (STEP) Guide for Improving Pedestrian 

Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations provides additional information on the types of 

countermeasures to pair with marked crosswalks at uncontrolled and midblock locations (FHWA, 2018). 

The STEP Guide recommends crossing improvements based on the posted roadway speed, daily 

volumes, and roadway configuration. For multi-lane, higher speed, and higher volume roadway 

conditions, the guide recommends substantial crossing improvements like a pedestrian refuge island, 

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB), and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB). These improvements

are in addition to visibility improvements such marked crosswalks, lighting, and crossing warning signs. 
Design and Operational Measures 59 

Detailed engineering analysis will help to determine the appropriate combination of treatments for a 

pedestrian/bicyclist crossing (FHWA, 2018). These infrastructure improvements can make crossings safer 

and more convenient for transit customers and can help reduce pedestrian and bicyclist crashes.

Agencies may consider the following types of safety treatments to improve crossings near transit (the 

next sections provide additional information): 

• Refuge islands. 

• Curb extensions. 

• Reduced corner radii. 

• Raised crossings. 

• RRFBs or PHBs. 

• Modifying motor vehicle travel lanes. 

• Warning and Regulatory signs. 

• Pedestrian and bicycle signals. 

• Two-stage bicycle turn box. 

• Leading pedestrian and bicyclist intervals. 

• Turning movement restrictions. 

Refuge Islands

Refuge islands allow pedestrians and bicyclists to cross one direction of motor vehicle traffic at a time

and on particularly long crossings, the islands can provide pedestrians and bicyclists with a place of 

refuge to pause and rest (figure 23). These treatments have been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes 

by 32 percent (Zeeger et al., 2017). This is especially important for slow moving pedestrians who need

longer gaps to cross at unsignalized crossings or who may not be able to fully cross the street in the 

time provided at a signalized intersection. 

Figure 23. Graphic. Pedestrian refuge island concept featuring pedestrian regulatory and 

warning signs (FHWA, 2018a).
Design and Operational Measures 60 

Islands that are 6-feet (preferably 8 feet) long in the direction of pedestrian travel can provide sufficient 

refuge space for pedestrians with disabilities, people with strollers, bicyclists, and others, such as the 

island shown in figure 23. The AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities recommends that 

the island area should be increased to 10 feet when it is intended to accommodate both pedestrians 

and bicyclists with trailers (AASHTO, 2012). Also, the cut-through should be the full width of the 

crosswalk and include detectable warning surfaces as long as a two-foot minimum gap can be provided 

between detectable warning surfaces (U.S. Access Board, 2011, proposed PROWAG, R208.2). 

Figure 24. Graphic. Dimension showing pedestrian refuge island crossing width (VHB, 2021).*

Curb Extensions

Curb extensions (or curb bulbouts) can be used on roadways with on-street parking to shorten 

pedestrian crossing distances and increase the visibility of pedestrians at roadway crossings (figure 25). 

By narrowing the curb-to-curb width of a roadway, curb extensions may also help reduce motor vehicle 

speeds and improve pedestrian safety. Curb extensions at bus stop locations can help preserve onstreet parking because fewer parking spaces need to be removed for buses to pull to the curb. They 

may also improve transit operations by enabling a bus to pull to the curb more easily and board and 

alight passengers more quickly. Locating bus stops on curb extensions may have the additional benefit 

of providing increased clear width on sidewalks by locating the shelter out of the pedestrian travel way.

More information on this concept is provided in the Bus Bulbout section of this chapter.

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 61 

Figure 25. Graphic. Concept demonstrating curb extensions on both sides of crosswalk (VHB, 

2018).*

Reduced Corner Radii

Wide intersection corner radii allow motorists to make high-speed turning movements. Reducing the 

corner radii can help reduce the speed of turning vehicles, improve sight distance between motorists 

and crossing pedestrians and bicyclists, and shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians and bicyclists

(figure 26). It is important to evaluate surrounding land uses and the traffic composition on the roadway 

when considering this treatment. If a curb radius is too small, trucks and buses may drive on the curb to 

turn, which can endanger waiting pedestrians and bicyclists. An analysis of the traffic and turning 

movements should be conducted to determine the impacts of this treatment on all types of vehicles, 

including transit, motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Figure 26. Graphic. Concept showing reduced corner radii (VHB, 2021).* 

Raised Crossings

Raised crossings are ramped speed tables that span the entire width of the roadway, often placed at 

midblock crossing locations, though they are sometimes placed at stop-controlled intersections, 

channelized turn lanes, or roundabouts (figure 27). Raised crossings reduce vehicle speeds, promote 

driver yielding, enhance the conspicuity of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists, and can reduce 

pedestrian crashes up to 45 percent (Thomas et al., 2016). Raised crosswalks are typically installed on 2-

lane or 3-lane roads with speed limits of 30 mph or less and annual average daily traffic (AADT) below 

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 62 

9,000 vehicles per day. Transit agencies may have concerns about the placement of raised crosswalks

along transit routes and near stops. FHWA’s Traffic Calming Primer notes that raised crosswalks are 

better suited for neighborhood circulators and local bus service and not generally appropriate for high 

frequency transit routes such as BRT, express, and limited stop service (unless the posted speed is 30

mph or less) (FHWA, n.d.). Additionally, while raised crossings improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at 

crossings, it is recommended that transit stops are not located near a raised crosswalk to prevent rider 

instability from transitioning to standing or sitting as the transit vehicle crosses over the raised 

crosswalk. 

Figure 27. Graphic. Raised crosswalk featuring pedestrian warning signs (FHWA, 2018b).

Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons 

(PHBs)

Both RRFBs and PHBs are pedestrian actuated devices that indicate a pedestrian is attempting to cross 

the roadway. RRFBs are sign conspicuity enhancements that draw a motorist’s attention to a pedestrian, 

school, or trail crossing sign when activated through a push button or passive detection. The warning 

sign and crosswalk markings inform the motorists to YIELD or STOP depending on the State or local 

law. A PHB is a “hybrid” beacon that includes traffic signal indications and pedestrian signals to control 

the movements of motorists and pedestrians. While these are not traffic signals, they have been shown 

to demonstrate high levels of motor vehicle yielding that persists over time. Accessible pedestrian 

signals may be used with PHBs and Audible Information Devices may be used with RRFBs to 

communicate crossing opportunities to pedestrians with vision disabilities. 

RRFBs include two rectangular shaped yellow indications, each with an LED-array-based light source, 

that flash with high frequency when activated (figure 28). They are placed on both sides of the marked 

crossing at locations like midblock, trail crossing, and other uncontrolled crossing locations. When a 

median is present, the left side of the RRFB should be placed in the median. RRFBs may be used on 

multilane roadways, and the FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing 

Locations provides application guidance based on speed, number of lanes, and vehicle volumes (FHWA, 

2018). RRFBs can reduce pedestrian crashes by 47 percent (Zeeger et al., 2017).
Design and Operational Measures 63 

Figure 28. Graphic. RRFB featuring pedestrian refuge island (FHWA, 2018c). 

A PHB consists of two red lenses above a single yellow lens that rest in the dark until activated by a 

pedestrian. Once activated, it then displays a sequence of flashing and steady signal indications to 

control motor vehicle and pedestrian movements (figure 29). PHBs are candidate improvements for 

uncontrolled crossing locations that are multilane roadways with volumes above 9,000 AADT and 

speeds at 40 mph and above. PHBs can reduce pedestrian crashes by 55 percent (Zeeger et al., 2017). 

The MUTCD includes provisions on the pedestrian crossing levels, placement near intersections, and 

required accompanying signage and pavement markings (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Chapter 4F). 
Design and Operational Measures 64 

Figure 29. Graphic. PHB featuring pedestrian regulatory and warning signs (FHWA, 2018d).

Modifying Motor Vehicle Travel Lanes

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety and access near transit stations can be improved by modifying lane 

configurations, narrowing widths, or removing lanes. This is also referred to as a road diet. Narrowing 

travel lanes can provide more space for sidewalks, shoulders, buffers, and bicycle lanes and may reduce

motor vehicle speeds on some roadways. Removing travel lanes can be accomplished by eliminating 

through-travel lanes or replacing a center-turn lane with raised median islands or a median strip. Road 

diets can provide space for on-street parking, shared-use facilities, transit lanes, and bicyclist facilities 

with increased separation from traffic. Road diets have been shown to reduce total crashes by 19 

percent in urban areas and 47 percent in suburban areas (Pawlovich, 2006). 

Removing travel lanes often involves tradeoffs between travel modes within a roadway corridor. For 

example, reducing a road from four lanes to two lanes may increase overall vehicle delay when a transit 

vehicle stops in the lane for passengers. Transportation agencies should coordinate with transit 

agencies to evaluate the impact on transit stop access and performance, as well as the effects on all 

modes, including automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians and on parallel streets. FHWA’s Road Diet 

Information Guide provides additional information for analyzing road diet candidates and potential 

improvements (Knapp et al., 2014). 
Design and Operational Measures 65 

Regulatory and Warning Signs

Regulatory and warning signs can increase driver awareness of pedestrians and bicyclists, especially in 

areas where they may not be expected (see figure 30). These signs can include:

• A bicyclist crossing sign (MUTCD W11-1) warning where a bicyclist may be crossing the roadway 

(FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 2C.49).

• A pedestrian crossing sign (MUTCD W11-2) warning where a pedestrian may be crossing the 

roadway (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 2C.50). 

• In-street or overhead pedestrian crossing signs (MUTCD R1-6, R1-6a, R1-9, and R1-9a) alert 

drivers of the requirement to stop or yield to pedestrians crossing (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 

2B.12). 

Signs should be used judiciously according to the MUTCD, “Regulatory and warning signs should be 

used conservatively because these signs, if used to excess, tend to lose their effectiveness" (FHWA, 

2009, MUTCD section 2A.04).

Figure 30. Graphic. Concept featuring pedestrian warning and regulatory signs (W11-2, W16-7PL, and 

R1-6A) (FHWA, 2018e).
Design and Operational Measures 66 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals

Pedestrian and bicycle signals can clarify right of way for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorized vehicles. 

Pedestrian signals should be provided at signalized intersections near transit stops and alert 

pedestrians—and bicyclists crossing within the crosswalk—to the appropriate time to cross the 

intersection. Using APS would allow the signal to communicate information in non-visual formats to 

pedestrians with vision disabilities. Bicycle signals only control bicyclist movements and should be 

considered at intersections with high bicyclist volumes and transitions between bicyclist facilities 

(Sanders et al., 2020). Agencies may request approval for use of bicycle signals from FHWA under the 

conditions of Interim Approval 16 (MUTCD IA-16). Figure 31 illustrates the guidance from the 

Massachusetts DOT for the placement of bicycle signals at one-way separated bicycle lanes (MassDOT, 

2015). Specific phasing should be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Accompanying pedestrian countdown signal heads, such as those shown in figure 32, are beneficial at 

intersections with high pedestrian crossing volumes or long crossing distances, and they have been 

shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by 70 percent when replacing “Walk/Don’t Walk” signals (Van 

Houten et al., 2012). Countdown signal heads indicate the number of seconds remaining for pedestrians 

to complete crossing the street before opposing traffic is allowed to proceed.

Figure 31. Graphic. Typical signal face locations for motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians 

for separated bicycle lanes (MassDOT, 2015).
Design and Operational Measures 67 

Signal phasing should balance the available crossing time with the wait time between crossing phases. 

Long wait times may increase the prevalence of pedestrians and bicyclists crossing against the traffic 

signal. Pedestrian signals can also be combined with traffic signals that restrict vehicles from making 

turning movements that could impair pedestrian safety. Standards and guidance for pedestrian signal 

timing are included in the MUTCD (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 4E.10). 

At busy midblock crossings, pedestrian- or bicyclist-activated traffic signals may be considered in lieu of 

RRFBs and PHBs for regulating vehicular traffic. Extensive provisions and standards for pedestrian signal 

warrants are provided in the MUTCD (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 4C).

Figure 32. Graphic. Concept demonstrating pedestrian and bicycle signals (VHB, 2021).*

Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Box

Depending on the intersection configuration and vehicular volumes, a two-stage turn box may be 

installed to facilitate bicyclists making two-stage left-turns (figure 33). The turn box should be placed 

between the crosswalk and the bicycle lane extension so that it is out of the path of vehicular travel. It 

should also be aligned with the receiving bicycle lane so that the bicyclist is able to travel straight into it 

from the turn box. As seen in figure 33, this allows the bicyclist to wait for the green signal in the new 

direction of travel, in front of vehicles waiting at the stop line. The turn box also provides a space for

bicyclists to wait that is adjacent to the crosswalk, minimizing potential conflicts between pedestrians 

and bicyclists. There should also be a no-turn-on-red restriction, using an R10-11, R10-11a, or R10-11b 

sign, for any turning movements that cross over the bicycle box, per the FHWA Interim Approval for the 

Optional Use of Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Boxes (MUTCD-IA-20). A turn queue box may be placed within 

a sidewalk or within the parking lane at T- or offset intersections.

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 68 

Figure 33. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a two-stage left-turn bicycle box (VHB, 2021).*

Leading Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intervals

Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) and Leading Bicyclist Intervals (LBIs) are low-cost adjustments to 

signal timing that release the pedestrian WALK or bicycle signal phase 3- to 7-seconds before vehicles 

are given the green indication (figure 34). An LPI can also be used as an LBI when a “BIKES MAY USE 

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL” sign (MUTCD R9-5) is present (FHWA, 2009). APS should be included to 

communicate pedestrian signal information in non-visual formats to pedestrians with vision disabilities. 

The LPI/LBI increases the visibility of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists and reduces conflicts with 

turning vehicles. LPIs have been shown to reduce pedestrian crashes by 13 percent at intersections 

(Goughnour, et al., 2018). To increase effectiveness, these treatments can be combined with a rightturn-on-red restriction for motorized vehicles. LPIs and LBIs may be deployed where there is a history of 

pedestrian crashes with turning vehicles, elevated pedestrian and bicyclist crossing volumes, vulnerable 

populations who need more time to cross, and intersections with poor visibility. Standards and 

provisions for the LPI may be found in the MUTCD (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 4E).

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 69 

Figure 34. Graphic. Concept demonstrating an all-red signal during the LPI phase (FHWA, 

2019). 

Turning Restrictions

Turning restrictions at signalized intersections can reduce turning vehicle conflicts with pedestrians and 

bicyclists by prohibiting turning during times or at locations with frequent pedestrian crossings or 

vulnerable populations like near schools and parks. Time-based restrictions may span periods with high 

turning vehicle and pedestrian conflicts, such as peak AM and PM travel times. However, right-turn-onred restrictions, illustrated in figure 35, are often installed in conjunction with LPIs and deployed in a 

targeted manner to avoid motor vehicle noncompliance. These restrictions are usually posted using a 

“NO TURN ON RED” sign from the R10-11 series of the MUTCD (R10-11, R10-11a, or R10-11b 

sign)(FHWA, 2009). Right-turn-on-red prohibitions have been shown to reduce all crashes by 2.6 

percent (Harkey et al., 2008). 
Design and Operational Measures 70 

Figure 35. Graphic. Concept demonstrating the "No Turn on Red" restriction (VHB, 2021).

*

Rail, Light Rail, and Streetcar Crossings

Crossing design is critical in locations where pedestrians and bicyclists cross rails—whether those are 

from rail, light rail, or streetcars. "Risky or inattentive behavior" has been noted as a primary factor in 

pedestrian-rail collisions (TCRP, 2007). Some of the specific factors related to pedestrian-rail crashes 

include:

• “Rushing to catch trains or get across intersections. 

• Ignoring audible and visual warnings at crossings. 

• Distractions, such as cell phones and headsets. 

• Not paying attention in transit malls. 

• Intoxication (Ogden and Cooper, 2019).” 

The most important crossing features for bicyclists are (1) the crossing angle and the presence of a gap 

on either side of the track rail and (2) the crossing smoothness. Crossing angles of 30 degrees or less 

are considered exceptionally risky for bicyclists to maneuver, particularly when wet. Significantly skewed 

crossing angles pose challenges mainly due to the risk of bicycle tires slipping into the track rails while 

crossing over them and could also create issues with sight lines prior to crossing over the tracks. 

Additional measures are available if the crossing angle is less than 60 degrees (Walsh et al., 2004). 

Crossings that have significant skew or complex geometries may necessitate an active traffic control 

system or may need to be closed to highway traffic (Ogden and Cooper, 2019). As bicyclist routes are 

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 71 

oftentimes planned for the same roadways, streetcar crossings can increase the potential for conflicts 

between the two modes. 

Most current standards and requirements for railroad at-grade warning systems are tailored to motor 

vehicle traffic and will need to be tailored to expected pedestrian and bicyclist traffic. FHWA’s HighwayRail Crossing Handbook provides guidance about pedestrian crossings (Ogden and Cooper, 2019). The 

MUTCD (see Parts 5 and 8), American Railway Engineering and Maintenance of Way Association 

(AREMA) Signal Manual (see Section 3.3.10) (FHWA, 2009; AREMA, 2021), and Code of Federal 

Regulations 49 (49 CFR Part 234) provide additional guidance (FRA, 2002). Different standards apply to 

at-grade crossings of light rail or streetcar tracks, which often have no gates or warning devices.

Per the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 49 CFR 234.225, railroads shall provide a minimum of 20 

seconds of warning time, with the active devices (bells, flashing lights, barricades, etc.) fully deployed 5 

seconds before the arrival of a transit vehicle (FRA, 2002). This gives pedestrians a minimum of 15 

seconds to complete crossing the tracks. Longer crossings may necessitate additional warning time 

built into the train detection system. The proposed PROWAG suggests that pedestrian facilities that 

cross railroads at-grade be accessible to and usable by pedestrians with disabilities (U.S. Access Board, 

2011). 

At-grade crossings with multiple tracks can present additional dangers to pedestrians who may assume 

that a warning has been deployed for a train that is currently stopped on one of the tracks when in 

reality, a second train is also coming on another track. Separate warnings may be necessary for these 

locations to help alert pedestrians of the full extent of the danger of the at-grade rail crossing.

Additionally, transit operating rules can incorporate guidance on hold-short, adjacent track occupancy, 

or stop-and-proceed rules to help prevent collisions at stations when multiple transit vehicles are 

present.

Safety treatments can be categorized as either active or passive traffic control systems. Active traffic 

control systems are those that engage in advance of or during a train crossing, such as four-quadrant 

gate systems, automatic gates, flashing-light signals, traffic control signals, actuated blank-out and 

variable message signs, and other active traffic control devices. Passive traffic control systems, 

consisting of signs and pavement markings only, identify and direct attention to the location of a grade 

crossing and advise road users to slow down or stop at the grade crossing as necessary to yield to any 

rail traffic occupying, or approaching and in proximity to, the grade crossing. 

Traditional crossbucks, gates, or flasher/bell assemblies are useful for warning pedestrians of oncoming 

vehicles, but all these devices are considered “supplemental” and are typically deployed as part of an 

engineering decision or a diagnostic team review. The MUTCD indicates flashing light signals with a 

Crossbuck sign and audible device should be used where there is inadequate clearing sight distance, or 

where light rail speeds exceed 35 mph (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Chapter 2). While these traditional devices 

have been reliable and effective in the past, some newer devices such as digital voice announcements, 

have been granted MUTCD permission to experiment. 

Other potential safety treatments include the following: 

• Stop lines, edge lines, and dynamic envelope pavement markings – Stop lines let 

pedestrians and bicyclists know where to safely stop in advance of the train and edge lines help 

keep pedestrians and bicyclists along the route. Detectable warning surfaces provide similar 
Design and Operational Measures 72 

cues to pedestrians with vision disabilities. Dynamic envelope pavement markings indicate the 

required clearance for the train or light rail transit equipment, accounting for any overhang due 

to loading of the vehicle, lateral motion, or suspension failure. These markings, shown in figure 

36 and figure 37, help pedestrians and bicyclists visualize the actual space the train may need 

and avoid conflicts with the passing vehicle.

• Refuge areas – Refuge areas should be considered between tracks and roadway travel lanes 

rather than placed between two sets of tracks, as shown in figure 38 (FHWA, 2009). If a refuge 

area is not physically feasible, additional pedestrian signal heads, signing, and detectors or 

flashing light signals could be installed (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 4E.08). 

• Fencing, gates, and channelization – Fences can be used to discourage pedestrians from 

crossing rail tracks in undesignated locations and used to guide pedestrians to designated 

grade crossings. Z-Crossings can force pedestrians to look in the direction of an oncoming train. 

Swing Gates are passive devices that require pedestrians to open before crossing, causing them 

to pause their movements, and better understand their surroundings including the possibility of 

oncoming trains. Gate Skirts can help deter pedestrians from crossing the right-of-way when the 

crossing warning systems are engaged (Ogden and Cooper, 2019). 

• Two-stage left-turn box – This is a treatment that can be used at any intersection—with or 

without the presence of rail—and helps bicyclists to make left-turns in two stages. This design, 

shown in figure 40 encourages bicyclists to cross the tracks at a right angle, which can help to 

reduce the chance of a bicyclist from slipping on the rails or getting caught in the tracks.

• Flanges – Bicycle and wheelchair wheels can become trapped in the flangeway opening, or the 

gap between the side of the rail and the roadway surface. As such, measures to reduce the 

flange gap should be implemented (U.S. Access Board, 2011, proposed PROWAG R302.7.4). 

The gap on the outside of the rail, also known as the “field flangeway”, can be remedied 

relatively easily using fillers made of rubber or polymer. The primary function of fillers is to keep 

water and debris out, but they can also eliminate the outside gap almost entirely. The gap on 

the inside of the rails, also known as the “gauge flangeway,” must be kept open since it is where 

the train wheels, or “flange”, travel to keep the train on the tracks (49 CFR 213.357). To allow for 

this flange, ADA standards recommend that public crossings have a maximum gauge flangeway 

width of 2.5 inches to allow individuals in wheelchairs to cross the tracks (U.S. DOJ, 2010). In 

general, light rail and streetcars need only a narrow flange and heavy rail needs a wider flange. 

The fillers for gauge flangeways are designed to accommodate this gap requirement and 

provide space for the wheel flange. The only exception to this is for low-speed rail (where the 

vehicle may be entering a freight yard), where the gauge flangeway can be filled completely, 

these may only be used in low-speed applications (Williams et al., 2004; AASHTO, 2012). 

• Grade-separated crossings – Railroad tracks with high-speed and high-frequency train service 

may necessitate pedestrian tunnels or overpasses with accessible grades to create a safe 

crossing for pedestrians.

• Signalization of crossings – In circumstances where streetcar, pedestrian, and bicyclist

crossings have less than ideal sight distance, the crossings can be controlled through a traffic 

signal.
Design and Operational Measures 73 

• Surveillance, education, and enforcement – Enforcement can help reduce the number of 

pedestrians trespassing (e.g., walking along railroad tracks).

Figure 36. Graphic. Example of light rail transit vehicle dynamic envelope markings for mixeduse alignments. (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Figure 8B-9).
Design and Operational Measures 74 

Figure 37. Graphic. Example of dynamic envelope pavement markings at grade crossings.

(FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Figure 8B-8). 

Figure 38. Photograph. Example of a pedestrian refuge island and channelization between 

tracks with fencing for channelization in Murray, UT (Wikimedia Commons, 2009).

*

* This image has a Creative Commons license and is part of the public domain.
Design and Operational Measures 75 

Figure 39. Graphic. Two-stage left turn for bicyclists crossing rail or streetcar tracks. (VHB, 

2021).*

* This image is not publicly available. VHB provided permission and shared for the purposes of this project.
Design and Operational Measures 76 

Oregon DOT compiled a list of rail crossing bicyclist and pedestrian safety treatments as compared to 

the relative cost to implement and impact on a variety of factors (Goodchild et al., 2017). Table 4 shows 

the summary of active treatments and table 5 shows the summary of passive treatments. 

Table 4. Overview of active rail crossing treatments (adapted from Goodchild et al., 2017). 

Treatments

CostMaintenanceWeather I tQuiet ZoneLight EmissionDurationCompliance R tBehavior

Flashing Light Signals $$ $$ M -- L L L H

Bells $ $ -- -- -- L L H

Vehicle Automatic Gates $$ $ -- -- -- H -- M 

Wayside Horn System $$ $ M L -- L -- M 

In-Pavement Marker System $$-$$$ $$ M -- M L -- M 

Pre-Signal/Traffic Lights $$$ $$ M -- H -- -- L 

Variable Message Sign/Blank-Out Signs $$ $ H -- -- -- -- M 

Dynamic Speed Monitoring Display (DSMD) $ $ H -- -- -- H H

Pedestrian Automatic Gates $$ $$ L -- -- -- -- M 

Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon $$ $ M -- -- M M H

Active and Automatic Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon 

(RRFB) $ $$ L -- M H H L 

Legend for Active Treatments

Low Medium High

L M H

$ $$ $$$
Design and Operational Measures 77 

Table 5. Overview of passive rail crossing treatments (adapted from Goodchild et al., 2017). 

Treatment

CostMaintenanceDay Visibility/AudibilityNight Visibility/AudibilitySight DistanceWeatherADADurationComplianceBehavior

Crossbucks $ $ M L M H -- L L M

Railroad Crossing Advance Sign $ $ M L M H -- -- -- M

Look Both Ways $ $ M L M H -- L -- M

Pavement Marking $ $$ M L M H H L -- H

Tactile Warning $ $$ H L M M M L -- H

Dynamic Envelope $$ $$ H M M M H L M M

Conflict Paint $ $ H M H M -- L H L

Glow in Dark Paint - - H H H M -- L H L

Rumble Strips $ $ M L L L L M M

Speed Bumps $ $ H M M M L L H M

Speed Humps $ $ H L H L L L -- L

Speed Kidney $ $ H M M M L L H M

Speed Cushion $ $ H M M M L L M M

Speed Table $ $ H M M M L L H L

Grade/Hill $$ $ H L L L L M -- M

Curves $$ $ H L H L H M -- L

Raised Crosswalk $ $ H L M H H L M L

Bollards $ $ H M H M -- M H M

Bicycle Rail or Lean Rail $ $ H L M L -- -- H L

Lighting $ $ -- H H M -- -- H M

Mirrors $ $ H L M H -- L -- M

Pedestrian Refuge $$ $ H M M L M L -- M

Channelization (Paving/Delineation) $$$ $$ H M H L -- M -- L

Channelization (Z-Crossing) $$$ $ H M H L H L -- M

Manual Gates $ $ H M H L H L -- M

Pedestrian overcrossing, 

undercrossing $$$ $ H M M L M M H L

Quick/Temporary Curb $ $ H M H M H M -- M

Pedestrian Crossing Flags $ $ M L M H H L L H

Legend for Passive Treatments

Low Medium High

L M H

$ $$ $$$
Design and Operational Measures 78 

Special Considerations 

Transit agencies can be aware of special scenarios, such as Wide and Ultra-Wide crossings and Long 

and Ultra-Long Angle crossings. 

Wide and Ultra-Wide Crossings are those with the following characteristics:

• Wide Crossings (>30 feet and <60 feet) are generally more than two tracks. 

• Ultra-Wide Crossings (≥60 feet) are generally more than four tracks. 

Wide and Ultra-Wide Crossings pose additional threats to pedestrians, especially older adult

pedestrians. Whereas the MUTCD defines the standard pedestrian walk rate from 3.0 to 3.5 feet per

second (FHWA, 2009, MUTCD Section 4E.06), distances greater than 60 feet would not allow persons to 

clear the grade crossing before the minimum required 20 seconds warning time. Some risk can be 

mitigated through: 

• Extended preemption/warning timing exclusively for pedestrians or all road users. 

• Refuge islands where space exists between tracks outside of the foul area (figure 38).

• Some combination of both, along with other safety treatments listed in this chapter.

Long and Ultra-Long Angle crossings are those with the following characteristics (Ogden and Cooper, 

2019): 

• Long Angle Crossing (Acute or Obtuse) (<90 degrees and ≥45 degrees). 

• Ultra-Long Angle Crossing (Acute or Obtuse) (<45 degrees). 

Long and Ultra-Long Angle crossings pose similar threats to pedestrians to those of Wide and UltraWide Crossing (figure 40). Some risk can be mitigated by:

• Creating perpendicular crossings within the same grade crossing. 

• Adding additional pedestrian/bicyclist channelization. 

• Adding additional flashing light signals/warning bells/automatic gates.

Figure 40. Photograph. Example of Long Angle Crossing with shortened pedestrian and bicycle 

lane crossing (top right), Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) crossing at 19th St NW 

& N Miami Ave, Miami, FL (Nearmap, 2021). 
Design and Operational Measures 79 

Transit Stop/Station

It is essential for transit stops and stations to have good linkages to the existing pedestrian and bicyclist 

network through the use of sidewalks, bicyclist facilities, curb ramps, and crosswalks. Placing transit 

stops and stations on and near Complete Streets help to meet the needs of all users, regardless of age 

and ability. Bus activity should be a consideration when combining transit corridors with on-street 

bicyclist facilities. For example, heavy transit corridors may not be preferable corridors for shared or onstreet bicyclist facilities. In those instances, there may be a suitable alternative route for the bicyclist 

facilities. Considerations for the placement of bicyclist facilities on transit corridors include pedestrian 

boarding and alighting space and transit operations effects on bicyclist comfort and safety (Schultheiss 

et al., 2019). Options for minimizing bicyclist conflicts with transit could include appropriate signage, 

pavement markings, bus bulbs, or separated bicycle lanes on the left side of a one-way street. 

In selecting and designing transit stop locations, agencies may consider operating factors such as

ridership and reliability. At the same time, agencies can consider factors that affect transit rider safety. 

Further, they can install amenities and design stops that meet both the needs of transit rider safety and 

the transit vehicle operation. The following section explores various factors related to transit stop 

placement and design that can impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety. 

Transit Stop Placement

Transit stop placement has a direct impact on pedestrian and bicyclist safety and this section discusses 

enhancements and considerations for transit stop placement. If a transit agency is not able to relocate a 

transit stop, other measures to improve safety, such as those described in chapter 6 should be 

considered. 

Connected routes provide pedestrians and bicyclists with the opportunity to connect to transit without 

having to extend routes or increase the need to cross the roadway. This is particularly important for 

pedestrians with disabilities. By understanding pedestrian and bicyclist “desire lines”, the transit agency 

and roadway owners can understand how the transit stop will integrate with those desired routes. 

Transit stop placement and design can help to encourage positive sight lines for transit operators, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists alike while also encouraging safe crossing behaviors for transit users. For 

example, as shown in table 6, a far side bus stop encourages pedestrians to cross behind the bus but 

can create sight distance issues for motor vehicles traveling in the opposite direction of the bus. A 

nearside stop allows passengers to access the bus closest to the crosswalk but can obscure curbside

signals and cause sight distance issues for drivers and pedestrians. A midblock transit stop can reduce 

congestion at passenger waiting areas and minimize sight distance problems at intersections. However, 

unless a complimentary mid-block crosswalk is provided, this stop location can increase the distance to 

the nearest intersection crosswalk and the potential for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross away from a 

marked crosswalk. 

Transit stop spacing has a major impact on the overall transit system performance and safety. Looking 

at the network of bus stops, agencies might find that over time additional stops have been added (FTA, 

2015). While this can increase convenience for transit riders, it may be difficult for roadway agencies to 

provide enhanced safety measures for pedestrians and bicyclists with several stops in close proximity. 
Design and Operational Measures 80 

Additionally, if buses stop in the travel lane, this may lead to erratic and risky movements by frustrated 

motor vehicle drivers who attempt to maneuver around the bus. All of this could lead to an increased 

risk of crashes. Transit agencies can periodically reexamine the location of stops to determine locations

of higher value to riders. 

Table 6. Comparative analysis of bus stop locations (adapted from FTA 2015). 

Stop Type Advantages Disadvantages

Near Side • Minimizes interference when traffic 

is heavy on far side of intersection

• Allows passengers access to buses 

closest to the crosswalk 

• Intersection available to assist in 

pulling away from curb

• Prevents double stopping

• Allows buses to service passengers 

while stopped at red light

• Provides driver with opportunity to 

look for oncoming traffic including 

other buses with potential 

passengers

• Conflicts with right-turning vehicles 

are increased

• Potentially obscures curbside traffic 

control devices and crossing 

pedestrians

• Potentially obscures sight distance 

for crossing vehicles stopped to the 

right of the bus

• Potentially blocks the through lane 

during peak periods by queuing 

buses

• Increases sight distance problems 

for crossing pedestrians

Far Side • Minimizes conflicts between rightturning vehicles and buses

• Provides additional right turn 

capacity by making curb lane 

available for traffic

• Minimizes sight distance problems 

on approaches to intersection

• Encourages pedestrians to cross 

behind the bus

• Accommodates shorter 

deceleration distances for buses

• Creates gaps in traffic flow for 

buses reentering the flow of traffic 

at signalized intersections

• Potentially blocks intersections

during peak periods by queuing 

buses

• Potentially obscures sight distance 

for crossing vehicles

• Increases sight distance problems 

for crossing pedestrians

• Interferes with bus operations and 

all traffic in general when stopping

after a red light

• Potentially increases number of 

rear end crashes since drivers do 

not expect buses to stop again 

after stopping at a red light

Midblock • Minimizes sight distance problems 

for vehicles and pedestrians

• Minimizes pedestrian congestion in 

passenger waiting areas 

• Reduces conflicts with different 

movements of vehicles (vehicles 

turning right and left) and can 

eliminate turning lanes

• Necessitates additional distance for 

no parking restrictions

• Encourages patrons to cross street 

at midblock (jaywalking)

• Increases walking distance for 

patrons crossing at intersections
Design and Operational Measures 81 

In addition to the stop placement considerations previously mentioned, BRT stop placements 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. However, BRT platforms are sometimes located atgrade in the median between travel lanes. Because of this, it is important to consider surrounding traffic 

speeds, surrounding bicyclist facilities and connections, pedestrian refuge space, connections to 

crosswalks, pedestrian control devices and timing, and transfer activity. 

Understanding the potential transfers between transit and other modes, such as bicycle share, can help 

transit agencies when orienting transit stops. Placing stops on the same quadrant of the intersection 

eliminates the need for pedestrians to cross the road to transfer. 

Transit Stop Design

There are several safety considerations to keep in mind when designing transit stops and stations. 

NACTO’s Transit Street Design Guide (NACTO, 2016) provides several design principles to improve 

safety. The first principle is that stations serve as gateways to the transit system. As these are the first 

and last places riders interact with while using transit, it is important to design stops in ways that make

them feel invited, safe, and comfortable, which are all factors that can help boost ridership. 

Transit stops should also facilitate movement and 

ease interactions. This second design principle, and 

the design elements discussed in this chapter, can 

increase the safety and efficiency of intersection 

crossings and rider transfers. In-lane stops and 

integrating platform heights with vehicles are other 

tactics used to enhance safety and efficiency of a 

transit system. Boarding islands and bulbs provide 

a direct path for users to board without any 

maneuvers from the transit vehicle. In addition to 

creating shorter, safer paths for pedestrians, these 

designs also increase sidewalk space and vehicle 

predictability—particularly at bicyclist-bus conflict

locations. 

The last two principles are simple, but crucial: 

universal design is equitable design and design for 

safety. The first part emphasizes the benefits from 

designing stops for all users—a stop that is 

accessible for all, regardless of abilities or age, 

creates a better experience for each rider. The 

second part, design for safety, considers all 

elements affecting riders: prioritization of direct 

and convenient walking access to transit stops, low 

delay pedestrian crossings, human scale lighting, 

transparent structures, weather protection, among 

Flexible Funds for Safety, 

Complete Streets, and Enhanced 

Transit - Transportation 

Planning Capacity Building 

Program 

Many Federal-Aid Highway Programs support 

bicycle lanes, better pedestrian walkways, 

trails, lighting, and other projects that enhance 

safety. However, some State Departments of 

Transportation (DOTs), cities, and Tribes may 

not use these funds for small-scale safety and 

access improvements due to processes and 

requirements more suitable to large-scale 

highway projects. Transferring, or flexing, 

funds from Federal Highway programs to the 

Federal Transit program facilitates federal 

investments at the local level for measures that 

improve access, particularly for underserved 

groups. (See FAQs for the full list of eligible 

activities and FTA’s flex funding page for 

additional uses: 

https://www.planning.dot.gov/flex.aspx). 
Design and Operational Measures 82 

others. Designers should make sure that all the stop facilities still provide accessible boarding and 

alighting space free of conflicts with other users, and accessible amenities. Figure 41 illustrates 

proposed key dimensions for accessible bus stops. The following sections describe design elements that 

enhance safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Figure 41. Graphic. Accessible bus stop boarding and alighting area, and shelters (U.S. Access 

Board, n.d.).

Curbside Stops

Curbside stops are the most common types of bus stops where the bus zone is located in the road, 

usually in a parking or loading lane area or stopping directly in the bus lane when neither of those are 

present. Passengers board and alight directly from the sidewalk. This is the lowest cost transit stop type

and only involves signage and an accessible boarding and alighting area. In many situations, this may 

be the only type of design feasible. This design may encourage impatient drivers to make last minute 

lane changes or drive aggressively due to delays from stopping buses, particularly with frequent and 

closely spaced stops. This concept is similar to that of figure 42, but does not involve the bus pulling

out of the travel lane.

Curbside Pullouts 

Also known as “bus bays,” “bus pockets,” or “bus turnouts,” curbside pullout stops allow buses to pull 

out of the travel lane (figure 42). The space for the pullout is typically taken from on-street parking. The 

actual stop design is similar to that of a curbside stop. These stops are typically most useful in locations 

where there are higher traffic volumes and speeds or longer bus dwell times. These stops can increase 

travel time for transit passengers due to the merge back into traffic. Further, if the pullout is blocked by 

parked vehicles, buses may stop in the lane—requiring passengers to board from the street, which may 

prevent some disabled passengers from boarding the bus.
Design and Operational Measures 83 

Figure 42. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a curbside pullout (adapted from NACTO, 2016). 

Bus Bulb Outs

Like traditional curb extensions, bus bulb outs are an extension of the curb that move the bus stop area 

out to the edge of the travel lane (figure 43). These are possible in areas with on-street parking or wide 

lanes. It frees up sidewalk space by the transit stop and provides a space for riders to queue in the curb 

extension. In locations with constrained space, this feature may also provide space for amenities, such 

as a shelter or bicycle racks, that may not have been possible otherwise. Other safety benefits include 

narrowing of the roadway (which can lead to traffic speed reductions), reduced crossing distances for 

pedestrians and bicyclists, and enhanced conspicuity of transit riders or individuals waiting to cross the 

street. 
Design and Operational Measures 84 

Figure 43. Graphic. Concept demonstrating a bus bulb (adapted from NACTO, 2016). 

Floating Transit Stops

There are two types of floating transit stops, which typically serve buses or streetcars: one that is 

located to the left of a travel lane, and the other is located to the left of an on-street bicyclist facility 

such as a separated bicycle lane. These two configurations are shown in figure 44 and figure 45. These 

types of stops provide a refuge area for both transit riders and pedestrians crossing the street. The 

placement of the transit stop away from the curb and the bicyclist facility against the curb reduces 

conflicts between transit vehicles and bicyclists “leapfrogging” one another as transit vehicles pull into a 

stop, are passed by bicyclists, and then pass bicyclists after reentering the travel lane (FTA, 2017).

Pedestrians can more easily reach the transit stop when the floating transit stop is placed at controlled 

intersections than when it is not. To limit crossings away from the marked crosswalk, railings should be 

installed on the right side of the island, along the through vehicular lane (NACTO, 2016). For those with 

bicyclist facilities to the right of the transit stop, pedestrian crossings to and from the floating bus stop 

should be prioritized over the bicyclist movement per Chapter 11 of the UVC (UVC, 2000). This may be 

realized through the use of a raised crosswalk spanning the bicycle lane between the curb and floating 

bus stop, a high visibility marked crosswalk, pedestrian railings, and a yield or stop line with 

accompanying signage to alert bicyclists of pedestrians in crosswalks (Porter et al., 2016). Colored 

pavement markings may be used to designate space exclusive to transit or bicyclists. Figure 44 shows 

transit lanes with red paint, which requires approval under Interim Approval 22 (MUTCD IA-22), and

figure 45 shows bicycle lanes with green paint, which requires approval under Interim Approval 14

(MUTCD IA-14). 
Design and Operational Measures 85 

Figure 44. Graphic. Concept demonstrating an exclusive floating transit stop (adapted from

NACTO, 2016). 

Figure 45. Graphic. Concept demonstrating floating transit stop with an adjacent bicycle lane 

(adapted from NACTO, 2016).

In both designs, a floating transit stop island of at least 8-feet wide in the direction of pedestrian 

crossing can provide pedestrians protection in the crosswalk. Including curb ramps, detectable warning 

surfaces, and channelization where appropriate would make the crossing accessible to all users (U.S. 

Access Board, 2011). In addition, providing an 8-feet long space, measured perpendicular to the curb, 
Design and Operational Measures 86 

would provide an accessible boarding and alighting area (U.S. Access Board, 2011). For islands with 

bicycle lanes located to the right, placing transit shelters at least 10 feet from crosswalks would help to 

maintain visibility between bicyclists and people exiting the transit stop (NACTO, 2016). 

In Maryland, the Montgomery County DOT (MCDOT) prioritized inclusive engagement with the visually 

disabled community to improve successive versions of its floating bus stops. MCDOT installed the first 

generation of floating bus stops in 2017 to integrate with separated bicycle lanes. These initial stops 

included truncated domes, header curbs, and sidewalk curbing with a 45-degree angle edge to prevent 

bicycle pedal strikes. However, these first stops did not have high contrast visual surfaces between the 

bicycle lane and platform, which are helpful for low vision transit riders. The next generation of floating 

bus stops were developed through tailored workshops with the visually disabled community and the 

use of tactile graphics (Montgomery County DOT, 2021). New transit stops incorporate numerous 

advances for accessibility: a level crossing at the front, located at a signal to simplify crossings; railings 

along the back and transverse railings at the ends; high contrast color differences; header curb; and

high visibility crosswalks. The floating stops, as shown in figure 45, also incorporate treatments to 

increase bicyclist yielding to pedestrians and lower speeds such as flex posts to narrow the lane, vertical 

and horizontal deflection, and “rumble strips” from thick pavement markings. Bicycle signals can also be 

used to provide dedicated phases for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Median Stop

A median transit stop is where a transit stop is placed in the center of the roadway, separating travel 

lanes that are in opposing directions. These are high capacity stops that are used for buses, BRT, light 

rail, and streetcars and due to their placement, make transit prominent and readily apparent to all 

roadway users. As with floating transit stops, this type of transit stop typically provides ample space for 

queued passengers and transit stop amenities, and it provides the added benefit of serving stops in 

both travel directions. 

The stop may be designed for either left- or right-side boarding. If the transit platform is in the center 

with the transit vehicles running on the outside, this is left-side boarding. If transit vehicles run through 

the center with platforms on both the right and left sides, this is right-side boarding. These two 

configurations are illustrated in figure 46 and figure 47. 

The minimum suggested platform width for right-side boarding is 8 feet. However, since left-side 

boarding allows for platforms serving two travel directions, the minimum suggested platform width is

10 feet (in constrained conditions), with a preferred width of 12 feet. If the left-side boarding platform 

only serves one direction, the suggested minimum width is 9 feet (NACTO, 2016). As with the floating 

transit stop, providing an 8-feet long space, measured perpendicular to the curb, would provide an 

accessible boarding and alighting area (U.S. Access Board, 2011). 

Since passengers cross the street to access the transit facilities, the use of LPIs and lagging left-turn only 

phases can help prioritize pedestrian movements at signalized intersections. There is still a risk of 

passengers darting into the street when a transit vehicle is approaching. Therefore, transit agencies may 

consider treatments such as fencing to address safety concerns and discourage this type of behavior. As 

passengers may cross travel lanes when entering and exiting stops, intersection design and 

signalization should prioritize pedestrian movements to eliminate turn conflicts. Protection at the edge 

of the median provides a physical barrier for crossing and waiting pedestrians.
Design and Operational Measures 87 

Figure 46. Graphic. Concept demonstrating left side boarding used in both directions (adapted 

from NACTO, 2016). 

Figure 47. Graphic. Concept demonstrating right side boarding with exclusive transit lanes 

(adapted from NACTO, 2016). 
Design and Operational Measures 88 

Lighting

Lighting is a critical component to any transit stop design. As the stops are pedestrian and bicyclist 

generators, it is important to make sure pedestrians and bicyclists are visible to drivers and each other. 

The lighting at transit stops should be “pedestrian-scale,” meaning that it is placed lower than typical 

street lighting (mounted at a height of 20 feet or less) and is designed to illuminate the sidewalk and 

other pedestrian spaces. Lighting can provide a visual reminder for drivers of potential pedestrian 

activity and can also be used to increase the general comfort and personal safety of passengers at 

transit stops. 

Table 7 includes recommended design criteria as presented in FHWA Report SA-21-087, Pedestrian 

Lighting Primer (FHWA, 2022). Recommended design criteria vary depending on the expected level of 

pedestrian activity. The classifications of low, medium, and high pedestrian activity are as follows: 

• Low Pedestrian Activity (10 or fewer pedestrians per hour): Areas with very low volumes of 

pedestrians during hours of darkness. Examples may include suburban streets with single family 

dwellings, very low-density residential developments, and rural or semi-rural areas.

• Medium Pedestrian Activity (11-100 pedestrians per hour): Areas where lesser numbers of 

pedestrians are expected during hours of darkness. Examples may include downtown office 

areas, libraries, apartments, neighborhood shopping, industrial, parks, and streets with nearby 

transit lines.

• High Pedestrian Activity (over 100 pedestrians per hour): Areas with significant numbers of 

pedestrians expected during hours of darkness. Examples may include downtown retail areas, 

theaters, concert halls, stadiums, and transit terminals.

Table 7. Recommended pedestrian lighting levels (FHWA, 2022). 

Pedestrian facility characteristics Average 

Illuminance

Average Luminance

Rural Urban

Intersection crosswalk 30 lux vertical * *

Midblock crosswalk 20 lux vertical * * 

Facility adjacent to roadway with low 

to medium pedestrian activity

2 lux

vertical * 1 cd/m2

Facility adjacent to roadway with high 

pedestrian activity and/or school zones

10 lux

SC 1 cd/m2 2cd/m2

*Use minimum maintained average pavement luminance criteria from RP-8-18.

Note: Values are for roadway scale luminaire heights (6.5m or 20 feet or higher). For pedestrian scale 

lighting (6.5m in height or lower), add 2 vertical lux and 0.5 cd/m2 to the criteria to overcome 

increased glare resulting from the use of a lower mounting height.

Transit Stop Amenities

Transit stop amenities are items that are not required for passengers to access transit, but move transit 

from the most basic, functional role to an experience that is more inclusive and enjoyable. To be more 
Design and Operational Measures 89

inclusive, amenities should be placed carefully to maintain the accessibility of the transit shelter and 

stop for those with disabilities. Providing bicyclist amenities at transit stops, stations, and on vehicles 

can help to expand transit ridership by integrating other modes and extending the reach of firstmile/last-mile transit connections (APTA, 2018). While these improvements may not reduce crash risk 

directly, they can improve the sense of personal safety and protection of property (FTA, 2017). In 

Minneapolis, Metro Transit undertook a public outreach process to find out what types of amenities 

passengers valued and what factors were important in transit stop placement. They used the feedback 

to develop transit shelter and amenities guidance, as shown in figure 48. 

Figure 48. Graphic. Minneapolis Shelter Guidelines Development (Metro Transit, 2015). 

The following transit amenities have the greatest potential for improving the transit riding experience. 

Each of these amenities should be placed out of the sidewalk and not block pedestrian circulation, even 

when occupied, or access to the shelter and transit stop for people using mobility aids. Shelters should 

Bus Stop Amenities Survey: What did we learn?

Transit Shelter & Amenities Guidance: 

Adding a shelter 

Metro Transit considers adding shelters at bus stops as funding and maintenance resources allow based on this criteria: 

 Stops that are major transfer points

 Neighborhoods with higher number of households without a car

 Some locations that may meet the criteria for a shelter may not have space to fit a shelter. 

Removing a shelter

A shelter may be permanently removed if:

 There are consistently fewer than 15 average daily boardings

 Changes in roadways or property boundaries that make it so the site cannot fit a shelter

 There are site problems, such as inadequate clearance around the shelter for pedestrians or traffic safety issues

A shelter may be temporarily removed if: 

 It is located in a construction zone, such as a street construction project or development of property

 There is ongoing vandalism or documented public safety issues. Persistent vandalism takes maintenance staff time 

away from other needs, and temporarily removing the shelter interrupts the pattern of behavior

Improving a shelter

 Metro Transit may add lighting or heating to a shelter, if it meets the criteria and electricity is available or easily 

added. Lighting and heating are not standard features in shelters due to the high costs of installing and maintaining 

them.

 Lights are considered where there are higher boardings during evening or overnight hours, especially where there 

are documented personal security concerns

 Heaters are considered if there are at least 100 average daily boardings

Priorities for shelter and bus stop features:

Heaters

 Safe street crossings

Maintenance at bus 

stops and shelters

Signage and 

information

Benches

Shelters

Lighting

Priorities for where to locate shelters:

 Where many people wait for the bus.

 Near hospitals, healthcare clinics, social service centers, senior 

housing, housing and services for people with disabilities, where 

children are waiting.

 Where residents don’t have a car, where residents have lower 

income.
Design and Operational Measures 90 

be accessible to individuals with disabilities (U.S. Access Board, 2011). For example, those using mobility 

aids need to have the necessary space to access the ramp or lift on the transit vehicle. 

Seating/resting areas – These structures can take the form of benches to seats attached to the transit 

stop sign pole to leaning posts. They provide a spot for passengers to wait and can be critical for those 

disabled individuals with additional needs, older adults, pregnant, young, or those facing challenges 

that may not be visible. These should be placed in a location that is convenient to the stop so that 

passengers can see approaching transit vehicles. 

Shelters – These structures provide some sort of protection from the weather, like shade from the sun 

and protection from rain and snow. Some shelters provide shields in the front to protect waiting 

passengers from water splashed from passing vehicles. Shelters are generally located conveniently near

the stop so that passengers can see approaching transit vehicles.

Bicycle parking – This can include bicycle racks, lockers, parking, and security. Bicycle parking is 

important because bicycles fulfill many transit riders’ first and last mile needs—helping them to get to 

the transit station but allowing them to leave the bicycle there if they chose/could not take it on the 

transit vehicle. 

• Bicycle racks are a structure where riders can secure their bicycles. Bicycle racks can be simple in 

design but are also the most vulnerable of all the bicycle parking options. 

• Bicycle lockers offer a more secure parking option. These are locked containers that hold 

individual bicycles and are accessed with a key. Because they are compartmentalized, the lockers

prevent theft and shelter bicycles from the weather. 

• Bicycle parking and security are also a more secure form of bicycle parking. This type of parking 

includes a room for bicycle storage and may include video surveillance. 

Mobility Hubs and Micromobility

Mobility hubs are co-located modes of transportation such as shared use mobility devices (e.g., bicycle

share, electric scooters), ridesharing options, and electric vehicle charging, as illustrated in figure 49. The 

hubs are typically connected through some form of digital infrastructure that allows people to link trips

together on various modes with the ease of using an application on their phone. 

Co-locating services helps to close the gaps in an individual trip and provides flexibility in modal choice. 

It also helps to solve the first-mile/last-mile problem of how to connect people from their origins and 

destinations to transit stops, which could increase transit ridership. For pedestrians and bicyclists, 

mobility hubs could mean a reduction in crashes with motorized vehicles due to reductions in the 

volume of vehicular traffic. This might also mean an increase in pedestrian and bicyclist volumes or 

sharing space with other micromobility options, such as electric scooters. Most electric scooters are to 

be operated in the street or in bicyclist facilities, as indicated in the rental agreements and backed by 

State and local laws. However, these devices oftentimes are operated on the sidewalks, where they 

travel at much higher speeds than pedestrians. The speed discrepancy could lead to crashes between 

the two. Additionally, while sidewalks might provide a nice smooth surface for operating electric 

scooters, sidewalks and curb ramps were not designed for the speeds that are possible on electric 

scooters. Another potential impact of micromobility devices includes device placement in public rightof-way when they are no longer in use. Although micromobility users are provided guidance on where 
Design and Operational Measures 91 

to leave the devices when the trip is finished, they are sometimes left obstructing sidewalks, curb ramps, 

or transit stops. Improving bicyclist facilities to include buffers or physical barriers from vehicular travel 

lanes could help minimize potential among bicyclists, pedestrians, and micromobility users.

Figure 49. Graphic. Visualization of mobility hub services (CoMoUK, 2019). 
 92 

 Overcoming Barriers 

to Safe and 

Accessible Transit
 93 

Transit agencies can adopt numerous changes to reduce accessibility barriers for current and 

potential transit riders. These include addressing driver behavior near transit stops, co-locating 

mobility options, incorporating technological solutions that benefit all riders, addressing 

sidewalk maintenance options, and resilience planning for emergency response. Together, these 

advances support transit use by more people of all ages and abilities and help agencies to grow 

and adapt to changing conditions and needs. 

Changing Driver Behavior Near Transit Stops 

Pedestrian and bicyclist safety near transit stops is a critical issue for overcoming access to transit. As 

identified in chapter 2, proximity to transit stops is a risk factor for both pedestrians and bicyclists. 

Transit agencies can implement programs and physical improvements—or work with partner 

agencies—to reduce the risk of injury to riders. 

One option to reduce crash risk at transit stops is the initiation of a High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) 

program to encourage increased yielding to pedestrians and bicyclists and safer passing. An HVE is 

often a multiphase campaign of both education to community members and enforcement of driver

yielding at targeted locations by law enforcement. The education on yielding and passing laws precedes 

the enforcement phase, and it may include radio ads, TV commercials, and outreach to schools and 

community groups. Enforcement then occurs where motorists are ticketed for failure to yield to 

pedestrians in crosswalks; this activity may be conducted in waves, first with warnings, and then 

followed by traffic citations. Research on HVE in Saint Paul, Minnesota found that while motorist 

yielding was lower at crossing locations near transit stops compared to other locations, yielding rates 

increased and passing behaviors (that would create multiple threat crash situations) decreased 

following the HVE campaign (Craig et al., 2019). 

Other improvements like parking restrictions to improve pedestrian and bicyclist visibility can modify 

driver behavior and reduce conflicts near transit stops. For example, FHWA collected case studies along 

transit corridors that illustrate how removing or restricting parking improves sight lines for transit 

operators and motorists and expands bicyclist and pedestrian facilities (Goughnour et al., 2016). Many 

of these modifications are also described in chapter 5. 
 94 

Co-locating Mobility Options 

Co-locating mobility options provides riders with a seamless transition between modes and the ability 

for cohesive trip planning from start to finish. However, limited right-of-way, drainage structures, street 

trees, and parking can limit transit stop placement and connectivity to other modes. These constraints 

may look different in rural and urban areas. For example, the lack of sidewalks, designated places to 

cross the street, and waiting areas are more pronounced in rural areas (Boyle, 2015). However, urban 

areas may not have sufficiently wide sidewalks or transit landing pads, which is the boarding and 

alighting area, that accommodates all users, including those with mobility devices. 

When siting or improving transit stops, transit agencies may consider taking the following actions to 

address physical constraints: 

• Engage and coordinate early on with local municipalities, counties, and States for developing

Better Bus Stop programs, and addressing missing pedestrian and bicyclist facilities and transit 

stop design (Boyle, 2015).

• Communicate the importance of transit and proactively seek out the relevant agencies to both 

help them understand and clarify the transit agency’s space needs so they can be appropriately 

balanced with the other competing space demands (Boyle, 2015). 

• Prioritize accessibility.

• Develop a customized bus stop design and location guidance document so that the agency can 

be more effective in communicating its needs with local jurisdictions and developers and permit 

flexibility when needed. Guidelines can also support decision making for when to provide

amenities at a given stop (Boyle, 2015). 

• Consider bus stop balancing for stops with safety and accessibility issues (Miatkowski and 

Hovenkotter, 2019). Transit agencies may consider removing low performing stops or those with 

safety concerns to prioritize improvements at nearby stops with greater right-of-way for 

amenities, improving crossing locations, and connecting pedestrian and bicyclist facilities.

• Consider the tradeoffs to other modes, such as parking removal or lane reconfigurations, to 

accommodate transit stops. For example, a floating stop may be preferred for the co-location of 

a separated bicycle lane along a higher frequency route. The floating stop would remove fewer 

parking spots than a mixing zone (e.g., 40 feet versus 80 feet for the bus zone) and would 

reduce conflicts for bicyclists but would come at higher financial costs. 

• Reassess mobility policies to create mode-agnostic mobility goals, such as those that promote 

reducing fatal and serious injuries for all road users and access to healthy food options

(Evenhouse et al., 2019). These types of policies could support more comprehensive 

management of limited right-of-way. For example, this could include prioritizing the integration 

of active transportation like bikeshare with transit stops or the targeted removal of parking 

stops to allow for marked enhanced crossings to transit.
 95 

 

Technological Solutions to Route Planning

The use of technology can support improved transit route planning, increased access to transit, and the 

co-location of other mobility services. Transit agencies typically know when people board the bus with 

fareboxes but may not have accurate information on where riders alight. Similarly, a fare card that can 

be used for transit and other mobility options could provide insight into ridership data on multimodal 

trips. AVL and Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) are common among medium and large transit 

agencies to help gather alighting data. Route, trip, and segment level data can assist transit planners in 

optimizing route planning and design (Byala et al., 2021). This information can complement rider 

intercept surveys in determining demand for new and underserved routes.

Transit agencies are also using “big data” to enhance the route planning process. In a survey of its 

member transit agencies, the APTA reported that some agencies are analyzing ridership data from 

mobile fare apps to track trips and transfers across regional transit agencies to support improved 

service planning (Dickens and Hughes-Cromwick, 2019). Additionally, location-based cell phone data is 

also used to help identify potential transfer and connection points between routes and determine route 

patterns (Dickens and Hughes-Cromwick, 2019). The use of “big data” from regional travel demand 

WMATA Principles for Bus Stop Design Principles

As part of its Metrobus Customer Experience Plan, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA) developed several resources to improve transit access including an asset inventory, bus stop 

guide, and wayfinding strategy. The Bus Stop Amenity Reference Guide provides guidance to partner 

agencies and jurisdictions on the elements for basic, enhanced, and transit center stops (WMATA, 2019). 

The resource includes thresholds for when to include features such as lighting and shelters and when to 

consider optional bus stop enhancements. 

The WMATA bus stop guidance also establishes objectives and principles for supporting bus stop 

development and providing partner agencies the flexibility needed to address constrained environments. 

First, the guide’s objectives include maximizing customer comfort and safety, ensuring that bus stops are 

easily identifiable, creating a predictable waiting experience, and striving for accessibility and equity. 

These are intended to influence the outcomes of stop placement and co-located amenities. Second, the 

guide recognizes the constraints of the built environment and proposes the following two principles that 

should inform all bus stops (WMATA, 2019): 

• Flat – the grade of sidewalks, crosswalks, and curbs should conform with ADAAG guidelines to 

facilitate wheelchair movement to and around the bus stop area.

• Clear – crosswalks, sidewalks, and any paths used by customers to access the bus stop and its 

amenities should be unobstructed to allow free movement.

Together, the guide’s objectives, principles, example design drawings, and guidelines help inform the 

discussion among transit practitioners on constraints and tradeoffs without compromising the essential 

elements of access.
 96 

models and purchased sources can help illustrate where demand for travel exists that would not be 

known through traditional community outreach and surveys.

Route planning can also integrate connections with modes and services to improve access and mobility 

for riders. These connections can include payment coordination with TNCs, co-located mobility hubs, 

transfers to demand response transit (DRT), and coordination for first-mile/last-mile connections (Byala 

et al., 2021). Forms of DRT include microtransit, paratransit, subsidized rideshare programs, and fixed

deviated route services, all of which operate according to a rider request via mobile applications or 

phone calls to a call center. Microtransit is a form of DRT that involves using vehicles, such as vans and 

shuttles, to move multiple riders from their respective origins and destinations simultaneously along a 

dynamically generated route within a designated region or zone. For example, Montgomery County, 

Maryland started a microtransit pilot service to help fill the first-mile/last-mile connection to and from 

two local light rail stations (Montgomery County DOT, 2021). 

Finally, outreach to riders in the route planning process is essential, especially to disadvantaged and 

diverse populations. For example, during route planning for the greater Baltimore area BaltimoreLink 

bus service, engagement with low-income residents illustrated that riders and potential riders were 

more willing to walk to high frequency transit if their issues of personal safety at night were addressed

(Byala et al., 2021). 

Addressing Sidewalk Maintenance

Sidewalks are an essential part of the pedestrian transportation network. In many jurisdictions in the 

United States, individual property owners are required to maintain the portion of sidewalk within their 

property. Because of this, it can be challenging to preserve a connected, accessible, and continuous 

network of sidewalks. Some homeowners may not have the funds to repair cracked or damaged 

sidewalks. In the case of abandoned properties, it may be difficult to track down a responsible party and 

hold them accountable for the upkeep. Some agencies are exploring options to mitigate these issues, 

either through cost-sharing programs, grant programs, or taking over the cost of maintenance. The 

following are a listing of example agency programs to help defray the burden of sidewalk maintenance 

from individual property owners, ultimately helping to maintain an accessible and continuous surface 

for pedestrians.

Agencies with cost-sharing programs for sidewalk maintenance: 

• City of San Diego, California (The City of San Diego, 2021):

- The City pays for 50 percent of the eligible replacement cost and the property owner 

pays the remaining 50 percent. The fee is based on a per square foot cost and is the 

same for all neighborhoods throughout the city.

• The City of Naperville, Illinois (City of Naperville, 2021): 

- The City dictates that public sidewalk maintenance is the responsibility of the adjacent 

property owner. The City has implemented a cost sharing sidewalk program to assist 

property owners in the upkeep of public sidewalks located throughout the city.
 97 

- For sidewalks adjacent to residential properties, the City pays 60 percent and the 

resident pays 40 percent. 

- For sidewalks adjacent to multifamily and commercial properties, the cost is split 50-50 

between the City and property owner.

- For multifrontage residential lots, the City pays 60 percent for the shorter frontage and 

75 percent of the longer frontage; the homeowner pays the balance.

• St. Louis, Missouri (City of St. Louis, 2021): 

- Property owners are required to maintain their sidewalks in good repair. The City offers 

owners a cost sharing option through the 50-50 sidewalk program.

• Salt Lake City, Utah (Salt Lake City, n.d.): 

- The repair or replacement of deteriorated sidewalk, drive approach, and curb and gutter 

in the public way is the responsibility of the adjacent private property owner. Property 

owners can hire a contractor to accomplish the necessary concrete repairs, which 

requires a permit to work in the public way, or property owners can take advantage of 

the 50-50 concrete program.

• City of San Antonio, Texas Sidewalk Rebate Program (City of San Antonio, 2021): 

- Any residential sidewalk within the city limits can be considered under the program.

- An eligible project scope and rebate estimate will be provided by the property owner 

conducting repairs. 

- Once repairs are finished, the adjacent property owner submits their completed rebate 

forms and the copy of invoice (or receipt) from the contractor itemizing work and costs. 

Once repairs have been inspected and approved, the property owner will receive a 

rebate check by mail for the eligible amount of the repair cost, not to exceed $3,000.

Roadway agencies that have a grant program for sidewalk maintenance: 

• The City of Madras, Oregon (The City of Madras, n.d.a; The City of Madras, n.d.b): 

- The City recognized the cost to repair sidewalks due to damage caused by street trees 

was causing a significant financial burden to businesses. They created the Downtown 

Sidewalk Repair Grant to help defray those costs.

- Eligible Uses of Grant Funds: 

1. Applications will only be accepted for commercial properties in the downtown 

where there is a street tree planted. 

2. Property owners may only apply for one grant for one property in a calendar 

year. 

3. First time applicants will be given priority over previous applicants. 

4. Applications must be received and approved by the City prior to any work being 

performed. Retroactive applications will not be accepted. 
 98 

Cities that maintain their own sidewalks: 

• Austin, Texas (Smart Cities Dive, n.d.; City of Austin, n.d.): 

- The City took over responsibility for sidewalk maintenance in the mid-1990s, but did not 

have a funding strategy that could generate enough revenue to ensure a high level of 

accessibility. By providing a Federal regulatory framework, the ADA helped reframe how 

the City repairs and replaces sidewalk through the development of a new sidewalk 

program that uses a scoring system to rate sidewalks by condition and prioritizes them 

based on the repairs needed to provide accessibility. Details in Austin’s Sidewalk Master 

Plan state that ADA compliance is a requirement for any project to attain funding.

• Washington D.C. (Smart Cities Dive, n.d.): 

- City residents can report any sidewalk that needs service, specifying the location, type of 

pavement, and severity of the problem. The City ensures an investigation within 10 days 

but warns that more labor-intensive repairs depend on available resources. 

Resilience Planning for Emergency Response 

In the case of emergencies—weather, public health, or other situations—transit agencies may alter or 

reduce service. Because of this, it is important for roadway owners and transit agencies to work

together to develop a relationship and framework that allows them to adapt quickly to the changing 

environment. 

This type of resilience planning can include changing routes or stop locations and/or modifying the way 

services are provided. By engaging in resilience and scenario planning, stakeholders can work together 

to come up with contingency plans. These plans should consider how people will access the transit 

stops, the space needed at that transit stop, the need for service changes, and how people will access 

new routes (FTA, 2021). 

It is important to note that some forms of transit may be more adaptable than others. For example, rail 

services and stations are fixed so the types of changes possible are more limited. However, because of 

their singular use—that of serving transit riders—they may be less impacted by changes due to 

emergencies. Buses are an example of a much more adaptable form of transit. They can easily be 

rerouted due to flooding and roadway closures. However, communicating changes in a rapidly evolving 

situation can be challenging. Sometimes changes can be communicated through websites or mobile 

applications. In the absence of these tools, riders may be notified via a posting at the transit stop. In 

that event, it may be necessary for the transit agency to work with the roadway owner to make sure that 

riders have access to the new transit stop location. This could include the creation of temporary 

walkways along roadways such as those found in work zones or warning signs to drivers notifying them 

of new/temporary transit stops. ATSSA provides a checklist (included in Appendix A) for pedestrian 

facilities in work zones that might be helpful for transit agencies and roadway owners to consider if a 

temporary route change is necessary. 
References 99 

References

AASHTO. (2010) Highway Safety Manual. http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

AASHTO. (2012). Guide for the development of bicycle facilities. 4th Edition. Section 5-48

AASHTO. (2018). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. 7th Edition. 

AASHTO. (2021). Guide for the planning, design, and operation of pedestrian facilities. 2nd Edition. 

https://store.transportation.org/item/collectiondetail/224

Advocacy Advance. (2014). First mile, last mile: how federal transit funds can improve access to transit for 

people who walk and bike. 

https://bikeleague.org/sites/default/files/FirstMileLastMile_August2014_web.pdf 

American Planning Association. (2015). The benefits of street-scale features for walking and biking.

https://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/download_pdf/Benefits-ofStreet-Scale-Features-Walking-Biking.pdf

APTA. (2017). Who rides public transportation. https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/Resources/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Who-Rides-PublicTransportation-2017.pdf 

APTA. (2018). Bicycle and transit integration: A practical transit agency guide to bicycle integration and 

equitable mobility. APTA SUDS-UD-RP-009-18. https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/Standards_Documents/APTA-SUDS-UD-RP-009-18.pdf 

APTA. (2019). Crash and fire protected inward and outward facing audio and image Recorders in Rail 

Transit Operating Compartments. APTA RT-OP-RP-024-19. https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/Standards_Documents/APTA-RT-OP-RP-024-19.pdf

AREMA. (2021). 2021 communications & signals manual.

https://publications.arema.org/Publication/CASM_2021

Arlington County, (2021). Vision Zero Dashboard. https://transportation.arlingtonva.us/visionzero/maps-and-safety-data/

Axiomtek. (2014). Improved surveillance technology for mass transit. 

https://www.axiomtek.com/Default.aspx?MenuId=Solutions&FunctionId=SolutionView&ItemId=447

&Title=Improved+Surveillance+Technology+for+Mass+Transit

Boyle, D. (2015). Better on-street bus stops. Transit Cooperative Research Program. Washington, DC. 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172376.aspx 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics. (2018). Travel patterns of American adults with disabilities. 

https://www.bts.gov/travel-patterns-with-disabilities 

Byala, L., Johnson, S., Slocum, R., Zalewski, A., Weiland, J., Culp, L., Eby, B., Lewis, P., Calves, G., and 

Sampson, D. (2021). Redesigning transit networks for the new mobility future. Transit Cooperative 

Research Program. http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/181561.aspx 
References 100 

Capital Metropolitan Area Transit Authority. (2020). Transit design guide: standards & best practices.

Austin, Texas. https://www.capmetro.org/docs/default-source/plans-and-developmentdocs/transit-oriented-development-docs/transit-design-guide.pdf?sfvrsn=f7e538aa_2 

Lubitow, A., Carathers, J., Kelly, M., Abelson, M., (2019). Gender minority transit riders experience violence 

and discrimination. The Gender Policy Report. University of Minnesota.

CDC. (2021). Social determinants of health: Know what affects health. 

https://health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/social-determinants-health

Center for New Urbanism New England Chapter (2020). 2020 Urbanism Awards. 

http://www.cnunewengland.org/2020-urbanism-awards

Chen, L., Chen, C., Ewing, R., McKnight, C. E., Srinivasan, R., & Roe, M. (2013). Safety countermeasures 

and crash reduction in New York City--Experience and lessons learned. Accident; analysis and 

prevention, 50, 312–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.05.009

Chicago Transit Authority. (2019). Halsted Bus/Bike Lane Pilot.

https://www.transitchicago.com/file.aspx?DocumentId=6325

City of Denver (2019). Denver Moves: Transit Plan. 

https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/Denveright/documents/transit/Denver

-Moves-Transit-Plan-2019.pdf

City of Edmond. (n.d.) Shared micromobility devices. https://edmondok.com/1546/Shared-DocklessMobility-Devices

City of Austin. (n.d.). Right of way maintenance (sidewalks, streets and alleys). 

https://www.austintexas.gov/page/right-way-maintenance-sidewalks-streets-and-alleys

City of Chicago. (n.d.). Equitable transit-oriented development. 

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/sites/equitable-transit-oriented-development/home.html 

City of Naperville. (2021). Sidewalk and curb maintenance program. https://www.naperville.il.us/projectsin-naperville/sidewalk-and-curb-maintenance-program/ 

City of San Antonio. (2021). Public works department. 

https://www.sanantonio.gov/PublicWorks/Projects/Sidewalk-Rebate-Program 

City of St. Louis. (2021). 50-50 sidewalk program. https://www.stlouismo.gov/government/departments/street/permits-inspections/50-50-sidewalk-program.cfm 

Clever Devices. (2021). Turn warning. https://www.cleverdevices.com/products/turn-warning/ 

CoMoUK. (2019). Mobility hubs guidance. https://como.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/MobilityHub-Guide-241019-final.pdf 

County Council of Howard County, Maryland. (2021). Bill No. 18-2021. 

https://www.howardcountymd.gov/sites/default/files/2021-04/CB18-

2021%20%28Transit%20and%20Pedestrian%20Advisory%20Group%29_0.pdf 
References 101 

Craig C. M., Morris N. L., Van Houten R., Mayou D. (2019). Pedestrian safety and driver yielding near 

public transit stops. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 

2673(1), 514-523. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0361198118822313

Dill, D., & McNeil, N. (2016). Revisiting the four types of cyclists: Findings from a national survey. 

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2587(1), 90-99. 

https://doi.org/10.3141%2F2587-11

Dimitriou, D., Sartzetaki, M., Roumboutsos, A., Polydoropoulou, A., Pagoni, I., Tsirimpa, A., Pichler, S., 

Verma, J., Gregory, C., Marsilio, M., Maciejewski, A., Wyrowski, L., and Alexopoulous, K. (2020). 

Transport trends and economics 2018-2019: Mobility as a service. United Nations Economic 

Commission for Europe. 

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp5/publications/Mobility_as_a_Service_Transport_Tre

nds_and_Economics_2018-2019.pdf 

David S. S., Foot H. C., Chapman A. J., Sheehy N. P. (1986). Peripheral vision and the aetiology of child 

pedestrian accidents. British Journal of Psychology, 77(1), 117-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-

8295.1986.tb01987.x

Dickens, M. & Hughes-Cromwick, M. (2019). Policy brief: Leveraging big data in the public transportation 

industry. American Public Transit Association. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Big-DataPolicy-Brief.pdf 

DVRPC. (n.d.). RideScore. https://www.dvrpc.org/webmaps/ridescore/

Easter Seals Project Action. (2012). Effective Transportation Advisory Committees: Creating a Group that 

Reflects all Community Voices. (p. 5).

El-Geneidy, A., Grimsrud, M., Wasfi, R., Tétreault, P., & Surprenant Legault, J. (2014). New evidence on 

walking distances to transit stops: Identifying redundancies and gaps using variable service areas. 

(41(1), pp. 193-210). Transportation.

Evenhouse, E., Partridge, E., Feigon, S., Gray, L., and Berardi, D. (2019). Four steps towards mobility 

integration for public agencies: Policy brief. 

https://secureservercdn.net/50.62.89.79/6c6.77f.myftpupload.com/wpcontent/uploads/2019/06/05.08.19_PolicyPaper_SUMC.pdf

Ewing, R. (n.d.). Pedestrian- and transit-friendly design: A primer for smart growth. Smart Growth 

Network. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ptfd_primer.pdf

Fairfax County. (2017). One Fairfax Policy. 

https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/topics/sites/topics/files/assets/documents/pdf/one-fairfax-policy.pdf

Farrington, B., & Schwartz, C. (2017). Better bus stops community engagement report. Metro Transit 

Engineering & Facilities, Customer Services & Marketing departments. 

https://www.metrotransit.org/Data/Sites/1/media/about/improvements/betterbusstopscommunitye

ngagementreport.pdf

Florida Department of Transportation. (2019). Maximizing data usage by transit agencies.

https://fdotwww.blob.core.windows.net/sitefinity/docs/default-source/transit/documents/fdottransit-agency-data-maximization-final-report.pdf?sfvrsn=6c831d55_2 
References 102 

FHWA. (2002). The importance of public transportation. (pp. 14-1 to 14-9). 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/2002cpr/pdf/ch14.pdf 

FHWA. (2009). Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways. (p. 498) 

https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/mutcd2009r1r2edition.pdf

FHWA. (2018). Guide to improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations. Safe 

Transportation for Every Pedestrian Program 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Lo

c_3-2018_07_17-508compliant.pdf

FHWA. (2018a). Pedestrian Refuge Island. FHWA-SA-18-062. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/techSheet_PedRefugeIsland2018.pdf

FHWA. (2018b). Raised Crosswalk. FHWA-SA-18-063. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/techSheet_RaisedCW2018.pdf. 

FHWA. (2018c). Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_RRFB_508compliant.pdf 

FHWA. (2018d). Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB). FHWA-SA-18-064. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/fhwasa18064.pdf 

FHWA. (2018e). Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_VizEnhancemt_508compliant.pdf 

FHWA. (2019). Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). FHWA-SA-19-040. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/fhwasa19040.pdf 

FHWA. (2021). Lighting. FHWA-SA-21-050. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pdf/PSC_New_Lighting_508.pdf

FHWA. (2022). Pedestrian Lighting Primer. FHWA-SA-21-087. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/docs/Pedestrian_Lighting_Primer_Final.pdf

FHWA. (n.d.). Traffic calming ePrimer – Module 3.

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ePrimer_modules/module3pt2.cfm 

Fitzpatrick, K., Avelar, R., and Turner, S. (2018). Guidebook on Identification of High Pedestrian Crash 

Locations. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-HRT-17-106). 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/17106/17106.pdf 

FRA. (2002). Title 49 CFR Part 234 grade crossing signal system safety technical manual. U.S. Department 

of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration. 

https://railroads.dot.gov/sites/fra.dot.gov/files/2020-08/2002-08_Signal_Technical_Manual.pdf 

FTA. (2011). Final policy statement on the eligibility of pedestrian and bicycle improvements under Federal 

transit law. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/08/19/2011-21273/final-policystatement-on-the-eligibility-of-pedestrian-and-bicycle-improvements-under-federal

FTA. (2015). Stops, spacing, location and design. https://www.transit.dot.gov/research-innovation/stopsspacing-location-and-design 
References 103 

FTA. (2017). Manual on pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/researchinnovation/64496/ftareportno0111.pdf

FTA. (2019). Safety considerations associated with between-car barriers. FTA Safety Bulletin. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-andguidance/safety/132181/fta-safety-bulletin-19-02-safety-considerations-associated-between-carbarriers.pdf 

FTA. (2020a). Inward- and outward facing image and audio recorders. SB 20-2. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2020-12/FTA-Safety-Bulletin-20-02-Inward-andOutward-Facing-Image-and-Audio-Recorders-12-30-20.pdf

FTA. (2020b). Performance-based planning and programming. https://www.transit.dot.gov/performancebased-planning 

FTA. (2021). COVID-19 recovery practices in transit. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-06/TSO-COVID-19-Recovery-Practices-inTransit-20210611-v6.pdf

FTA Office of Budget and Policy. (2021). National transit database: Safety and security policy manual. 

FTA. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2021-

05/2021%20Safety%20and%20Security%20Policy%20Manual_0.pdf 

FTA. (n.d.) Planning for TAM: Roles and responsibilities for MPOs and State DOTs. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/regulations-and-guidance/transportationplanning/60246/planning-tam-fact-sheet.pdf

FTA. (n.d.-a). Pilot Program for Transit-Oriented Development Planning. 

https://www.transit.dot.gov/TODPilot

FTA. (n.d.-b). Transit Asset Management. https://www.transit.dot.gov/TAM

Gibbons, R., Edwards, C., Williams, B., and Andersen, C. (2008). Informational report on lighting design for 

midblock crosswalks. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HRT-08-053. Washington, DC. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/08053/08053.pdf 

Goodchild, A., McCormack, E., Bovbjerg, A., Sheth. M. (2017). Multi-modal intersections: Resolving 

conflicts between trains, motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. No. FHWA-OR-18-04. Oregon 

Department of Transportation. 

https://depts.washington.edu/sctlctr/sites/default/files/research_pub_files/MultiModal%20Intersections%20-%20Resolving%20Conflicts.pdf 

Goodman, D., Douwes, C., Friedman, B., Hilton, E., Redmon, T., Rousseau, G., Struve, B., Bailey, L., VegaBarachowitz, D., Bennett, K., Burchfield, R., Co, S., Effland, R., Jacobsen, B., Kingsbury, D., Lugo, A., 

McDonnell, J., Parks, J., Reeves, P., ... Schneider, R. (2015). Separated bike lane planning and design 

guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-15-025. Washington, DC. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/se

paratedbikelane_pdg.pdf 
References 104 

Goodwill, J., Reep, A., and Pine, R. (2012). Improving bus transit safety through rewards and discipline. 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC. 

https://doi.org/10.17226/14651 

Goughnour, E., Albee, M., Thomas, L., Gelinne, D., and Seymour, J. (2020). Pedestrian and bicyclist road 

safety audit (RSA) guide and prompt lists. Federal Highway Administration. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa20042.pdf

Goughnour, E., Revilla, J., and Pitts, C. (2016). Improving access to transit using road safety audits: four 

case studies. Federal Highway Administration. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/resources/docs/fhwasa16120.pdf

Goughnour, E., Carter, D., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Lan, B., Chun, P., Signor, K. (2018). Safety evaluation of 

protected left turn phasing and leading pedestrian intervals on pedestrian safety. Federal Highway 

Administration, Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-044. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/18044/18044.pdf 

Hagen, R. (2014). How Omnitrans uses a driving simulator to help train bus drivers. The Sun. 

https://www.sbsun.com/2014/12/16/how-omnitrans-uses-a-driving-simulator-to-help-train-busdrivers/ 

Harkey, D., Srinivasan, R., Baek, J., Council, F., Eccles, K., Lefler, N., Gross, F., Persaud, B., Lyon, C., Houser, 

E., Bonneson, J. (2008). Accident modification factors for traffic engineering and ITS improvements. 

NCHRP Report 617. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13899/accident-modification-factors-for-trafficengineering-and-its-improvements 

Henderson, R., Fehr, D., Martin, J., Ramos, P., Friedman, B., Olmsted, M., Schwartz, F., Schwartz, L., 

Howard, A., Filson, L., Mustafa, A., Falk, K., Barela, T., Smith, J., Bochner, B., Storey, B., Erickson, P., 

Kronemeyer, T., Zimbabwe, S., ... Ewing, R. (2010). Designing walkable urban thoroughfares: A context 

sensitive approach. ITE. Washington, DC. 

https://www.ite.org/pub/?id=e1cff43c%2D2354%2Dd714%2D51d9%2Dd82b39d4dbad 

Hess, D. and Lombardi, P. (2004). Policy support for and barriers to transit-oriented development in the 

inner city. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887. 

TRB, National Research Council. Washington, D.C., pp. 26-33. https://communitywealth.org/sites/clone.community-wealth.org/files/downloads/article-hess-lombardi.pdf 

Howard County, Maryland. (2021). Multimodal transportation board. 

https://www.howardcountymd.gov/TPAG

IndyGO, 2020. Service Standards. https://www.indygo.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/01/2019_IndyGo_Service-Standards_Appended_FINAL_REDUCED.pdf 

Judicial Administration, 28 C.F.R. § 35 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-28/chapter-I/part35?toc=1

Kaseko, M., Nyagah, P., Teng, H. (2014). Enhancing transit service in rural areas and Native American 

Tribal communities: Potential mechanisms to improve funding and service. Mineta National Transit 

Research Consortium, MNTRC Report 12-21. San Jose, CA. 
References 105 

Kern, J. (2017). Sensing Danger: Utilizing Collision Avoidance Technology. Mass Transit. 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/technology/article/12308116/sensing-danger-utilizing-collisionavoidance-technology

King County Metro (2017). ‘Walk Safe’ campaign. https://kingcounty.gov/depts/transportation/newsarchive/archive/2017/20171214-Metro-pedestrian-safety-campaign.aspx

Knapp, K., Chandler, B., Atkinson, J., Welch, T., Rigdon, H., Retting, R., Meekins, S., Widstrand, E., Porter, 

R.J. (2014). Road diet informational guide. FHWA-SA-14-028. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/road_diets/guidance/info_guide/rdig.pdf

LA Metro. (2016). First Last Mile Strategic Plan & Planning Guidelines. https://www.metro.net/about/firstlast/

Landis, B., Vettikuti, V., Ottenberg, R., McLeod, D., and Guttenplan, M. (2001). Modeling the roadside 

walking environment: Pedestrian level of service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, 1773(1), Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.3141/1773-10 

Lutin, J., Wang Y., Ke, R., Clancy S. (2017). Active safety-collision warning pilot in Washington State. 

Washington State Transit Insurance Pool (WSTIP). 

https://wiki.unece.org/download/attachments/58524081/VRU-Proxi-05-

11%20%28Israel%29%20WSTIP_ActiveSafety-CollisionWarningPilot.pdf?api=v2

Lutkevich, P., McLean, D., and Cheung, J. (2012). FHWA Lighting Handbook. Federal Highway 

Administration. Washington, DC. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.

pdf

Mardan A. & Zhu. S. (2019). Using crowdsourced data to inform planning: A case study on safety of 

cyclists and infrastructure needs. George Mason University.

Maryland Transit Administration. (2019). Bus stop design guide. Baltimore, Maryland.

https://www.mta.maryland.gov/bus-stop-design-guide 

Massachusetts Department of Transportation. (2015). Separated bike lane planning and design guide. 

https://www.mass.gov/lists/separated-bike-lane-planning-design-guide

Metro Transit. (2015). Solar power providing more shelter lighting. https://www.metrotransit.org/solarpower-providing-more-shelter-lighting

Metropolitan Transit. (2009). Bicycle and Pedestrian Connections to Transit Infrastructure Study: Final 

Report. https://metrocouncil.org/Transportation/Publications-And-Resources/BicyclesPedestrian/Bicycle-and-Pedestrian-Connections-to-Transit-Infr.aspx

McGuckin, N., & Murakami, E. (1999). Examining trip-chaining behavior: Comparison of travel by men 

and women. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1693(1), 

79-85. https://doi.org/10.3141%2F1693-12

Miami-Dade Transportation Planning Organization. (2018). First mile-last mile options with high trip 

generator employers. (pp. i and 84). http://www.miamidadetpo.org/library/studies/first-mile-lastmile-options-with-high-trip-generator-employers-2017-12.pdf
References 106 

Miatkowski, P. and Hovenkotter, K. (2019). Bus stop balancing: A campaign guide for agency staff. 

TransitCenter. New York, NY. https://transitcenter.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/07/BusStopBalancing_Final_061719_Pages-1.pdf 

Monterey Salinas Transit. (2020). Designing for transit a guide for supporting public transit through 

complete streets. Salinas, California. https://mst.org/wp-content/media/DesigningForTransit-2020-

Edition.pdf 

Montgomery County DOT. (2021). Department of transportation – transit services. 

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/dot-transit/flex/ 

Montgomery County DOT. (2021). Planning and designing streets to be safer and more accessible for 

people with vision disabilities. 

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DOT/Resources/Files/DesigningStreetsforPVD_Toolbox_20210

603_Clean_ADA.pdf 

Nabors, D., Schneider, R., Leven, D., Lieberman, K., & Mitchell, C. (2008). Pedestrian safety guide for 

transit agencies. Federal Highway Administration. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_transit/ped_transguide/transit_guide.pdf

Nassi, R., Swartz, D., Chanecka, A., Casertano, P., Thum, G., (n.d.). BikeHAWK: Adapting the pedestrian 

hybrid beacon to aid bicyclists crossing busy streets.

https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/examples/example_details.cfm?id=4950 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2015). Pedestrian and Bicycle 

Transportation Along Existing Roads ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. Washington, DC: The 

National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/22163 

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis. 

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25255. 

National Aging and Disability Transportation Center. (2016). Effective snow removal for pathways and 

transit stops. https://www.nadtc.org/wp-content/uploads/NADTC-Effective-Snow-Removal-forPathways-Transit-Stops.pdf 

NACTO. (2013). Urban bikeway design guide. https://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-designguide/ 

NACTO. (2016). Transit street design guide. https://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/ 

NACTO. (2019). Guidelines for regulating shared micromobility. https://nacto.org/wpcontent/uploads/2019/09/NACTO_Shared_Micromobility_Guidelines_Web.pdf 

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2020). Overview of motor vehicle crashes in 2019. (Traffic 

Safety Facts Research Note. Report No. DOT HS 813 060). National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813060

National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2019). Pedestrians: 2017 data. (Traffic Safety Facts. Report 

No. DOT HS 812 681). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nearmap. (2021). Nearmap. https://apps.nearmap.com/maps/ 
References 107 

NHTS. (2020). Non-motorized travel. 

https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/FHWA_NHTS_Brief_Bike%20Ped%20Travel_041520.pdf 

NHTS. (2019). Transit trend analysis. 

https://nhts.ornl.gov/assets/FHWA_NHTS_Report_3A_Final_021119.pdf 

NHTSA. (n.d.). Advanced technologies. https://www.nhtsa.gov/crash-avoidance/advanced-technologies 

NHTSA, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): 2005-2018 final file and 2019 annual report File (ARF). 

Query of fatal pedestrian and bicycle crashes by rural/urban land use in 2019.

Ogden, B., Cooper, C. (2019). Highway-Rail crossing handbook, 3rd edition. FHWA-SA-18 040/FRA-RRS18-001. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/xings/com_roaduser/fhwasa18040/fhwasa18040v2.pdf 

Monsere, C., Wang, H., Wang, Yi, Chen, C. (2017). FHWA-OR-RD-17-13: Risk Factors for Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Crashes. Oregon Department of Transportation. 

https://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Programs/ResearchDocuments/SPR779_BikePedRisk.pdf 

Park, S., Choi, K., & Lee, J. S. (2015). To walk or not to walk: Testing the effect of path walkability on transit 

users’ access mode choices to the station. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 9(8), 

529-541. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2013.825036

Pawlovich, M. D., Li, W., Carriquiry, A., & Welch, T. (2006). Iowa’s experience with road diet measures: Use 

of bayesian approach to assess impacts on crash frequencies and crash rates. Transportation Research 

Record, 1953(1), 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106195300119 

Pecheux, K., Bauer, J., Miller, S., Rephlo, J., Saporta, H., Erickson, S., Knapp, S., Quan, J. (2008). Guidebook 

for mitigating fixed-route bus-and-pedestrian collisions. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/159782.aspx 

Perrero, M. (2019). A robust safety culture enhances an entire system. Mass Transit. 

https://www.masstransitmag.com/safety-security/article/21111770/a-robust-safety-cultureenhances-an-entire-system 

Policy Link. (n.d.) The equity manifesto. https://www.policylink.org/about-us/equity-manifesto

Porter, C., Danila, M., Fink, C., Toole, J., Mongelli, E., Schultheiss, W. (2016). Achieving multimodal 

networks: applying design flexibility and reducing conflicts. FHWA-HEP-16-055

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/multimodal_networks/fhwa

hep16055.pdf 

Regional Transportation Authority. (2021). Access to transit program. https://www.rtachicago.org/plansprograms/access-transit-program 

Retting, R. (2021). Pedestrian fatalities by state 2020. GHSA. 

https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2021-3/Ped%20Spotlight%202021%20FINAL%203.23.21.pdf 

RideKC. (2021). Transit App. https://ridekc.org/fares/transit-app

Rojas, H. (2018). Safety recognition incentive programs may be the key. National Safety Council.

https://www.nsc.org/getmedia/73deb8df-e9ec-43e4-af8a-d13073bde4fc/incentive-programshaddy-rojas.pdf
References 108 

Ryus, P., Laustsen K., Blume K., Beaird S., Langdon S., (2016). TCRP Report 183: A Guidebook on TransitSupportive Roadway Strategies.

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/173932.aspx#:~:text=TRB's%20Transit%20Cooperative%20Research

%20Program,%2C%20including%20motorists%2C%20bicyclists%2C%20and

Ryus, P., Danaher, A., Walker, M., Nichols, F., Carter, W., Ellis, E., Cherrington, L., Bruzzone, A. (2013). 

TCRP Report 165: Transit capacity and quality of service manual (3rd ed.). National Academy of 

Sciences, Transportation Research Board http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_165ch04.pdf

Safe Routes to School National Partnership. (2017). The wheels on the bus go to the grocery store.

https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/wheels_on_the_bus_0.pdf

Salt Lake City. (n.d.). Services. https://www.slc.gov/mystreet/home/services/

Samsara. (2021). The next wave in safety technology: collision avoidance systems. 

https://www.samsara.com/guides/collision-avoidance-system 

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. (2018). Designing for transit: a manual for integrating public 

transportation and land development in the San Diego Metropolitan Area. San Diego, California.

https://www.sdmts.com/sites/default/files/attachments/mts_designingfortransit_2018-02-02web.pdf 

Sanders, R., Schultheiss, B., Judelman, B., Burchfield, R., Nordback, K., Gelinne, D., Thomas, L., Carter, D., 

Zegeer, C., Semler, C., Sanders, M., Steyn, H., Ryus, P., Hunter, W., Koonce, P. (2020). NCHRP research 

report 926 guidance to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at intersection. 

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25808/guidance-to-improve-pedestrian-and-bicyclist-safety-atintersections 

Schultheiss, B., Goodman, D., Blackburn, L., Wood, A., Reed, D., and Elbech, M. (2019). Bikeway selection 

guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-SA-18-077. Washington, DC. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/docs/fhwasa18077.pdf 

Sharpe, R. and Bond, R. (2014). The United States’ investigation of the Virgin Islands Department of Public 

Works (VITRAN) under Title II of the Americans with disabilities act, DJ# 204-90-13, 

USAO2001V00054. https://www.ada.gov/briefs/vitran_lof.docx 

Smart Cities Dive. (n.d.). Who owns and maintains your sidewalks? Different cities have different laws. 

https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/ex/sustainablecitiescollective/who-owns-our-sidewalks/1070841/

Staes, L., Goodwill, J., and Yegidis, R. (2014). Bus operator safety – critical issues examination and model 

practices FDOT: BDK85 977-48. National Center for Transit Research. NCTR13(07). Tallahassee, FL. 

https://www.nctr.usf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/77953-Bus-Oper-Safety-Critical-Issues.pdf 

Staes, L., Godfrey, J., Flynn, J., Yegidis, R. (2017). Successful practices and training initiatives to reduce bus 

accidents and incidents at transit agencies. Transit Cooperative Research Program. 

https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24686/successful-practices-and-training-initiatives-to-reduceaccidents-and-incidents-at-transit-agencies 

Streetlight Data. (n.d.). https://www.streetlightdata.com/

TAP. (n.d.). TAP. https://www.taptogo.net/ 
References 109 

TCRP. (2007). Audible signals for pedestrian safety in LRT environments. National Academies of Sciences, 

Engineering, and Medicine. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/23174/audible-signals-for-pedestriansafety-in-lrt-environments 

The City of Madras. (n.d.-a). Sidewalk grant program. 

https://www.ci.madras.or.us/commdev/page/sidewalk-grant-program 

The City of Madras. (n.d.-b). Downtown sidewalk repair grant program. 

https://www.ci.madras.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/community_development/page/1981

/sidewalk_grant_packet.pdf 

The City of San Diego. (2021). Street division. https://www.sandiego.gov/streetdiv/services/roadways/sidewalk

Thomas, L., Levitt, D., Vann, M., Blank, K., Nordback, K., and West, A., (2021). Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash 

Analysis Tool (PBCAT): Version 3.0 User Guide. 

Thomas, L., Thirsk, N. J., & Zegeer, C. (2016). NCHRP Synthesis 498: Application of pedestrian crossing 

treatments for streets and highways. Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C.

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/175419.aspx 

Thorne-Lyman, A. (2017). Transit-oriented development guidelines. BART. 

https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/BART_TODGuidelinesFinal2017_compressed_0.pdf 

TransitCenter. (2018). From Sorry to Superb: Everything you need to know about great bus stops. 

https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/BusReport_Spreads.pdf

TransitCenter. (2018a). How Cities and Transit Systems Can Stop Worrying and Join Forces. 

https://transitcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Collaboration.pdf 

Transportation, 49 C.F.R. § 27 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-27?toc=1

Transportation, 49 C.F.R. § 37 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-A/part-37?toc=1

Transportation, 49 C.F.R. § 213 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part213?toc=1

Transportation, 49 C.F.R. § 234 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-II/part234?toc=1

Transportation, 49 C.F.R. § 625 (2022). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part625?toc=1

TriMet. (2020). Pedestrian Plan. http://trimet.org/walk/pdf/TriMet-Pedestrian-Plan.pdf 

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.

Turner, S., Sener, I., Martin, M., Das, S., Shipp, E., Hampshire, R., Fitzpatrick, K., Molnar, L., Wijesundera, R., 

Colety, M., Robinson, S. (2017). Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure

to Risk at Areawide Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities. Federal Highway Administration. 

FHWA-SA-17-041. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa17041/fhwasa17014.pdf 
References 110 

Turner, S., Sener, I., Martin, M., White, L. D., Das, S., Hampshire, R., Colety, M., Fitzpatrick, K., Wijesundera,

R. (2018). Synthesis of Methods for Estimating Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure to Risk at Areawide 

Levels and on Specific Transportation Facilities. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-SA-17-041. 

https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/fhwasa17041/fhwasa17014.pdf 

UVC. (2000). Section 1-118-Crosswalk 

U.S. Access Board. (2011). Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way. 76 

Fed. Reg. 44,663. https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATBCB-2011-0004-0347 

U.S. Access Board. (2013). Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; 

Shared Use Paths. 78 Fed. Reg. 10,110. https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2013-03298

U.S. Access Board. (n.d.). https://www.access-board.gov/prowag/

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Healthy People 2030. 

https://health.gov/healthypeople 

U.S. DOJ. (2010). 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.

https://www.ada.gov/regs2010/2010ADAStandards/2010ADAStandards.pdf

U.S. DOT. (2019). U.S. DOT Proposes Broader Use of Event Data Recorders to Help Improve Vehicle Safety. 

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-proposes-broader-use-event-data-recordershelp-improve-vehicle-safety

U.S. DOT. (n.d.). Security cameras/security systems fact sheet: Transit Overview. 

https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/factSheets/security/sec_overview.aspx#page=common 

Van Houten, R., LaPlante, J., Gustafson, T. (2012). Evaluating pedestrian safety improvements. Michigan 

Department of Transportation. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_Research_Report_RC-1585_408249_7.pdf 

Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT), (2018). VDOT Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. 

https://vdot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html?appid=ae073e60495948deafc34d08812dfb20 

WMATA. (2019). Bus stop amenity reference guide.

https://www.wmata.com/initiatives/plans/upload/WMATA_MCEP_Bus-Stop-AmenityGuide_20190809.pdf 

Whitfield G. P., Carlson S. A., Ussery E. N., Watson K. B., Brown D. R., Berrigan D., Fulton J. E. (2018). 

Racial and ethnic differences in perceived safety barriers to walking, United States National Health 

Interview Survey – 2015. Preventative Medicine, 114, 57-63. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.06.003 

Williams, J., Walsh, T., Harkey, D., Grigg, G., Litman, T. (2004). Wisconsin bicycle facility design handbook. 

Wisconsin Department of Transportation. 

https://wisconsindot.gov/documents/projects/multimodal/bike/facility.pdf 

Zegeer, C., Lyon, C., Srinivasan, R., Persaud, B., Lan, B., Smith, S., Carter, D., Thirsk, N. J., Zegeer, J., 

Ferguson, E., Van Houten, R., & Sundstrom, C. (2017). Development of Crash Modification Factors for 

Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments. Transportation Research Record, 2636(1), 1–8. 

https://doi.org/10.3141/2636-01 
 111

 Appendix A
Appendix A 112

RSA Prompt List Excerpt

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

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 addressped and bike needs,including those withdisabilities?• If future changes areproposed to the

transportation system orsurrounding land use,

will those needs still be

met?

• Are ped and bike facilitiesin good condition andaccommodate users withdisabilities?

• Are safe,continuous, andconvenient pedand bike routesprovidedthroughout thestudy area?

• Do obstructions blockthe view of roadway

users?• What obstructions blockthe view of pedestrianand bicycle facilities (e.g.,crosswalks, traffic controldevices, signs)?• Does the sun createvisibility issues at certaintimes of day?

• Are ped and

bike facilities

well-lit?

• Can peds and

bikes be seenby motoristsduring darkconditions?

• How doestransitinfrastructureinteract with pedand bikefacilities?

Along Street(including driveways) 

• How are peds andbikes accommodatedon both sides of theroad?• Are facilities shared,separate, or buffered?

• What is the comfortlevel for users?

• Are ped and bikefacilities appropriate forthe adjacent land use?• Do parked vehiclesobstruct ped paths?• Does parkingadversely affect bike

safety?

• Are the bike/ped facilitiesin good condition and wellmaintained?

• Are there obstacles (e.g.utility poles or signs) in thepedestrian travel path?• Are the sidewalks wideenough for two people towalk together?• Does vegetation or debrisinfringe on pedestrian orbicyclists facilities?• Is the pavement free ofobstacles (e.g., potholes,drainage grates,longitudinal joints)?

• How are peds

accommodated atdriveways/ accesspoints?• Are pedwalkwayscontinuous?• Are bike routes

continuous?

• Are there obstructionsblocking the driver’s viewof peds and bikes?• Are driveways designedwith peds and bikes inmind (e.g., less drivewaydensity, accessmanagement, propersignage, pavementmarkings)?

• Are sidewalksand bicyclefacilitiesadequately lit?

• Are theresufficientboarding areas(5 feet along

curb, 8 feetperpendicular tocurb line) andvisibility attransit stops?• Do ped andbike facilities

connect totransit stops?
Appendix A 113

Pedestrians Checklist and Considerations for 

Temporary Traffic Control Zones 

(Source: ATSSA)

Pedestrian Considerations:

Updated Checklist for Temporary 

Traffic Control Zones

For those who plan, design, construct, and maintain temporary traffic control (TTC) zones in the public right-of-way, there 

are several resources that provide requirements and guidance on accommodating pedestrians as part of the TTC setup. 

Chapter 6D of the 2009 Edition of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices contains provisions for pedestrian and 

worker safety. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. 

Since no Federal standard governing work zones has been adopted under the ADA, agencies have some degree of 

flexibility in determining how they will comply with the general accessibility requirements under Title II of the ADA. Public 

entities may turn to different resources for guidance when determining how to ensure accessibility. Two resources often 

referenced are the “2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way” and the “2013 

Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; Shared Use Paths,” proposed regulations 

published by the U.S. Access Board.

This updated checklist summarizes existing resources and provides work zone pedestrian access considerations for the 

planning, design, and construction phases of a project. It is intended for use by planners, designers, inspectors, and other 

construction personnel, including those responsible for utility and maintenance work. 

Pedestrian Considerations during Planning and Design

Planning

 Project scoping activities include provisions for accessible, detectable, 

safe, convenient travel paths for pedestrians that replicate, as nearly as 

possible, the most desirable characteristics of the existing sidewalks or 

footpaths throughout all phases of construction.

 Temporary facilities replicate, as nearly as practical, the accessibility 

features present in the existing pedestrian facility, when the existing 

facilities are disrupted, closed, or relocated in a TTC zone.

 The project avoids pedestrian conflicts with work site vehicles, 

equipment, operations, and mainline traffic.

 The project considers and mitigates pedestrian impacts caused by TTC activities, including access to significant 

generators such as schools, senior centers, transit stops, and shopping areas.

 Project staff meet with local community organizations (i.e., local ADA1

 advocates or city ADA coordinators) through 

open houses to address concerns and needs.

 Project includes project-specific outreach products in accessible formats for individuals with disabilities.

1

 ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act.

Header Images: FHWA, Getty

Source: ATSSA

1
Appendix A 114

Design

 The design provides for advance pedestrian information, transition information, 

project information, points of contact, and ingress and egress directions for 

pedestrians, including pedestrians with a variety of disabilities (e.g. mobility, 

vision, hearing, cognitive). 

• Consider a proximity-activated ‘audible sign’ to give notice of a detour route

and provide other applicable

project-specific details.

 The project maintains accessible pedestrian access to businesses, residences, 

transit stops, and other access points.

 The project provides temporary nighttime lighting for pedestrian walkways 

throughout the TTC zone.

 The project signs each Temporary Pedestrian Access Route (TPAR)2

 at intersections rather than mid-block locations. 

Agencies define the TPAR as an ADA compliant route that guides pedestrians through or around the work zone. 

Pedestrians must be warned in advance of changed conditions and their options for alternate routes, and temporary 

routes must be accessible.

 Detour routes are accessible, detectable, and clearly communicated by signs and TTC devices.

 Temporary or alternate routes include accessible devices to delineate and allow detection of the pedestrian path and 

include curb ramps as needed.

 The design includes paths that separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, with similar lengths to the original 

pedestrian routes.

 The design includes covered walkways, where needed, to protect pedestrians from falling debris hazards.

 The design maintains access to existing transit stops or includes the relocation of transit stops with an accessible path 

to temporary boarding and alighting areas. 

 The project features are completely documented, including all aspects considered, and all information is saved in the 

permanent project record file.

 To avoid discriminating against individuals with disabilities, the project should include the following provisions.

• The project provides an alternate route when existing pedestrian facilities are disrupted, closed, or relocated in a

TTC zone. Temporary facilities replicate the accessibility features present in the existing pedestrian facility.

• The project uses water-filled barriers, concrete barrier, or other longitudinal channelizing devices that are

detectable for pedestrians with visual disabilities (see sections 6G.05, 6F.63, 6F.68, and 6F.71 of the MUTCD).

Detectable devices have a solid toe rail covering an area 1.5 to 6 inches above the ground. Note that the use of

caution tape stretched between traffic control devices is not adequate and not acceptable. Avoid encroachment

into pedestrian facilities by signs, the legs of stands, or barricades.

• Additional devices communicate traffic control messaging to individuals with visual or other disabilities, such as

audible information devices or accessible pedestrian signals.

2

 See draft MNDOT guidelines for illustrations of TPAR features: 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone/ADA/DRAFT-TPARGuidelines.pdf

Pedestrian Considerations: Updated Checklist for Temporary Traffic Control Zones

Source: ATSSA

2
Appendix A 115

Design Recommendations:

• Provide a minimum sidewalk width of 4 feet (a 5 foot width is desirable), erect parallel or perpendicular

curb ramps with raised sides and slopes not exceeding 12:1, and provide passing space (a minimum 5

foot by 5 foot space every 200 feet where full 5 foot temporary sidewalks are not feasible). Cross slopes for

ramps must not exceed 1:48 (2%).

• Maintain a firm, stable, and slip resistant surface to eliminate barriers to wheelchair use and to avoid tripping

hazards (elevation changes greater than 1⁄4”). Surface openings are to be no more than 1/2” in the direction

of travel. Ensure all grade breaks are flush and include detectable warning surfaces where the temporary

sidewalk meets the street.

Pedestrian Considerations in the Field

Construction/Maintenance/Utility

 Public notices for construction projects include information about pedestrian closures and detours with specific 

outreach to organizations representing people with disabilities.

 Construction phasing considers continuous access through or around the impacted area. For example, removing 

curb ramps at all four corners of an intersection simultaneously will reduce access.

 TPARs are readily accessible and usable by individuals with disabilities, to the maximum extent feasible, and 

infeasible items are documented. 

 The path is maintained and clear of debris and other items that may obstruct pedestrian access. Temporary routes 

and ramps are stable with non-slip surfaces.

 At intersections, pedestrian access is controlled, and traffic control devices provide advance notification of sidewalk 

closures and guidance to safe crossing locations including audible messages.

 The pedestrian signal head is clear of visual obstructions such as fencing and/or equipment.

 Additional signing/markings are installed, and transit stops are added or relocated, as necessary.

 Physical barriers separate pedestrians from vehicular traffic, and protective features are installed as needed. 

Pedestrians are protected from the work space with barricades detectable by cane, and barricades are continuous, 

stable, and non-flexible.

Field Device Criteria: Consider barricades with a solid toe rail covering an area 1.5 to 6 inches above the ground. 

The top of the barricade should be 36” to 42” in height with diagonal strips having at least 70% contrast. Also see 

MUTCD references listed above for additional detail.

 Signs are adequately placed so that pedestrians are not confronted with mid-block obstacles on or above the TPAR. 

Signs and other devices mounted lower than 7 feet above the TPAR do not project more than 4 inches into the 

accessible path. Information on signs is communicated to pedestrians with visual or other disabilities.

 Temporary traffic signals are modified or installed, including pedestrian signals and push buttons, as necessary. 

Ensure pedestrian clearance times adequately account for walking speeds and travel distances. Ensure that push 

buttons are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities.

 Inspections include pedestrian accommodations during construction, and an appropriate timeline for inspection is 

being followed.

 Traffic control devices and the pedestrian area are in well-maintained and safe condition and are accessible, clean, 

sturdy, firm, smooth, continuous, detectable, and do not pose tripping hazards.

Pedestrian Considerations: Updated Checklist for Temporary Traffic Control Zones

3
Appendix A 116

Helpful Resources

2011 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way: https://www.access-board.

gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/public-rights-of-way/proposed-rights-of-way-guidelines

2013 Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way; Shared Use Paths: https://

www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/shared-use-paths/supplemental-notice

Accessible Design for the Blind: www.accessforblind.org

Accessible Sidewalks Video Series: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/publicrights-of-way/guidance-and-research/accessible-sidewalks-video-series

Accommodating Pedestrians in Work Zones Webpage: https://

www.workzonesafety.org/topics-of-interest/accommodatingpedestrians/

ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments: 

https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/toolkitmain.htm

ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments, 

Chapter 6, Curb Ramps and Pedestrian Crossings: 

https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/ch6_toolkit.pdf

ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments 

Chapter 6, Addendum: Title II Checklist: https://www.ada.gov/

pcatoolkit/ch6_chklist.pdf

Applying the Americans with Disabilities Act in Work Zones: A Practitioner Guide: https://www.workzonesafety.org/

training-resources/fhwa_wz_grant/atssa_ada_guide/

FHWA Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Website: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/

Minnesota DOT Guidance for Temporary Pedestrian Access Route Facilities and Devices: 

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone/ADA/DRAFT-TPARGuidelines.pdf

MUTCD Part 6: Temporary Traffic Control: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009r1r2/part6.pdf

Temporary Facilities Advisory Report: https://www.access-board.gov/guidelines-and-standards/streets-sidewalks/publicrights-of-way/background/access-advisory-committee-final-report/x03-temporary-facilities-and-construction

U.S. Access Board (http://www.access-board.gov) 

U.S. Access Board Guide to the ADA Standards - Chapter 4: Ramps and Curb Ramps: https://www.access-board.gov/

guidelines-and-standards/buildings-and-sites/about-the-ada-standards/guide-to-the-ada-standards/chapter-4-rampsand-curb-ramps

This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration Grant Agreement 693JJ31750002. 

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the view of FHWA. This publication does not constitute a national standard, specification 

or regulation.

Pedestrian Considerations: Updated Checklist for Temporary Traffic Control Zones

Source: ATSSA

March 2021

4