Planning for Safe Routes to School 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Norristown, Pennsylvania 

February 2008 
Created in 1965, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) is an interstate, intercounty and intercity agency that provides continuing, comprehensive and coordinated planning to 

shape a vision for the future growth of the Delaware Valley region. The region includes Bucks, Chester, 

Delaware, and Montgomery counties, as well as the City of Philadelphia, in Pennsylvania; and Burlington, Camden, Gloucester and Mercer counties in New Jersey. DVRPC provides technical assistance 

and services; conducts high-priority studies that respond to the requests and demands of member state 

and local governments; fosters cooperation among various constituents to forge a consensus on diverse regional issues; determines and meets the needs of the private sector; and practices public outreach efforts to promote two-way communication and public awareness of regional issues and the 

Commission. 

Our logo is adapted from the official DVRPC seal, and is designed as a stylized image 

of the Delaware Valley. The outer ring symbolizes the region as a whole, while the 

diagonal bar signifies the Delaware River. The two adjoining crescents represent the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the State of New Jersey. 

DVRPC is funded by a variety of funding sources including federal grants from the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration 

(FTA), the Pennsylvania and New Jersey departments of transportation, as well as by DVRPC’s 

state and local member governments. The authors, however, are solely responsible for its findings 

and conclusions, which may not represent the official views or policies of the funding agencies. 

DVRPC fully complies with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes and 

regulations in all programs and activities. DVRPC’s website may be translated into Spanish, 

Russian, and Traditional Chinese online by visiting www.dvrpc.org. Publications and other public 

documents can be made available in alternative languages or formats, if requested. For more 

information, please call (215) 238-2871. 
Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 1 

1. Project background 2 

2. Audit area overview 3 

3. Audit summary 6 

3.1. Audit findings 7 

3.1.1. Dekalb Street 7 

3.1.2. Arch Street 9 

3.1.3. Other streets 9 

3.1.4. Behavior 10 

3.2. Principal recommendations 10 

4. Next steps11 

Appendices 

A. Audit team A-1 

B. Audit agenda B-1 

C. Audit tool C-1 

D. Pedestrian and motorist observation sheet D-1 

E. Pre-audit photos E-1 

F. Audit day photo log F-1 

Figures 

1. Street map of study area 4 

2. Aerial view of study area 5 

Tables 

1. Traffic counts in the study area 5 

2. Problems and solutions identified by audit team 8 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 1 

Hancock Elementary School 

 Executive Summary 

This report documents the process, findings and recommendations of a road safety audit focusing 

on juvenile pedestrians in the vicinity of Hancock Elementary School, Norristown, Pennsylvania, 

which took place on March 20, 2007. 

The audit team found significant deficiencies in sidewalk conditions, crosswalks, and wheelchair 

access throughout the study area; and that vehicle speeds and visibility pose unacceptable risks to 

children crossing Dekalb Street. 

Recommendations include minor capital projects to remedy the deficiencies, and “quick fixes” that 

could be implemented immediately to improve safety. The capital projects may be funded through 

a National Safe Kids Coalition “Safe Kids Walk This Way” grant recently received by the Safe Kids 

Coalition of Southeastern Pennsylvania; additional funding may be applied for through the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) “Safe Routes to School” program.
2 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

1. Project background 

Over the past generation, student travel to primary school by walking and bicycling has declined 

dramatically across the United States: in 1970, nearly 65 percent of all children walked or biked to 

school, compared to less than 15 percent in 2000. Simultaneously, childhood obesity has increased to the level of an epidemic. That there is a causal link between the two trends has become 

widely accepted; and a growing body of research has linked the two trends with fundamental environmental changes which conspire to discourage people from walking including suburban sprawl, 

an ever-increasing speed and volume of motor traffic which endangers pedestrians, and roads designed and maintained without consideration of pedestrian safety and amenity. 

An international movement dedicated to reversing these trends, called “Safe Routes to School,” has 

succeeded in enacting legislation, at the state and federal level, to fund local projects to enable and 

encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and bicycle to school - and to make 

walking and bicycling to school safe and appealing. A “Safe Routes” provision in the most recent 

federal surface transportation act, SAFETEA-LU, requires a Safe Routes coordinator in every state, 

and provides funds for Safe Routes projects administered through the state departments of 

transportation. 

In accordance with this federal emphasis area, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

(DVRPC) has initiated a study project to assist school districts and municipalities in identifying 

roadway improvements eligible for funding under Safe Routes to School, while demonstrating innovative tools and techniques for Safe Routes planning that may show promise for broader application. Road safety audits (RSAs) are increasingly used by road agencies to identify and correct 

safety deficiencies proactively, and should prove useful in planning for Safe Routes to School. 

An RSA is a type of charrette involving a team of experts in road safety who, with the aid of a 

checklist, identify and document conditions affecting safety found during a field view of the road 

being audited. A post-audit debriefing is then held where participants reach consensus on 

problems and solutions. This project seeks to demonstrate the application of RSAs with a sole 

focus on the safety of juvenile pedestrians, on streets and highways proximate to primary schools, 

as a tool to identify projects for Safe Routes to School funding. 

The principal goal of Safe Routes to School is to increase the number of trips to school by walking 

and bicycling. Engineering improvements are an important component of a successful program, 

but alone, are insufficient to assure success. Successful programs also include enforcement, education, encouragement and evaluation components. For this reason study sites were sought near 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 3 

Hancock Elementary School 

schools where parents and administrators are involved in an on-going multi-faceted Safe Routes 

program, and for which local officials and citizen volunteers expressed interest in the audit process 

and the implementation of any recommendations resulting from it. 

The Safe Kids Southeastern Pennsylvania Coalition invited DVRPC in the fall of 2006, to participate 

in a task force to develop a proposal to fund pedestrian safety improvements through a $10,000 

“Safe Kids Walk This Way” grant being offered through the National Safe Kids Coalition. The task 

force included representatives from Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, a regional trauma center for 

juvenile patients, Montgomery County Health Department and PennDOT District 6. DVRPC agreed 

to participate in the task force, and to use the site selected by the task force as its RSA 

demonstration site. The task force chose to focus on Montgomery County for potential sites. 

Hancock Elementary School in Norristown was selected based on a review of PennDOT-generated 

data on the locations of crashes involving juvenile pedestrians, local knowledge of hazardous 

conditions on US 202 one block away and previous involvement by the school and community in 

Safe Routes programs. The audit was conducted on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2007. 

The RSA recommendations presented in this report are intended for use in prioritizing 

improvements to be implemented with the grant funding which was approved in early 2007. 

2. Audit area overview 

Hancock Elementary School is located at 1520 Arch Street in Norristown, Montgomery County, 

Pennsylvania. See Figure 1 on the following page for a street map of the study area. A state 

highway, designated as US 202 northbound and named Dekalb Street, passes within one block of 

the school. Arch and East Fornance streets are state-maintained. Full audits were conducted on 

Arch and Dekalb streets between East Fornance and East Brown streets. Sidewalk conditions only 

were audited on local streets (East Brown, Summit, and East Freedley) and E. Fornance Street 

between Arch and Dekalb streets, it’s intersections with those streets having been subject to full 

audits. 

The Montgomery County Health and Human Services Center, taking up the north side of East 

Fornance Street between Arch and Dekalb streets, is the area’s predominant non-residential use. 

Dekalb Street is fronted by large old single family houses adapted for reuse as medical offices with 

off-street parking accessed from Dekalb or Willow streets. The remaining streets are fronted by 

twin and single family houses on small lots with on-street parking. See Figure 2, page 5, for an 

aerial photo of the study area. 
4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Figure 1: Street map of study area 

DeKalb and East Fornance streets are 45 feet wide. East Freedley and Arch streets are 40 feet 

wide. East Brown Street is 35 feet wide. All of the streets audited have on-street parking, and all 

are two-way with the exception of Dekalb Street which is one way northbound. Speed limits, 

posted at 35 mph on Dekalb Street and 25 mph on Arch and East Fornance streets, are not posted 

on E. Freedley, Summit and Brown streets. On no street does the daily traffic volume exceed 

10,000 vehicles (see Table 1, opposite, for study area traffic counts). SEPTA’s Route 98 bus, 

Norristown to Plymouth Meeting Mall/Willow Grove, operates on Dekalb and Willow streets, hourly 

off-peak. There are no bus shelters on the route within the study area. 

The intersections of East Fornance Street with Dekalb and Arch streets are the only signalized 

intersections in the study area. Stops are sign-controlled on East Brown, East Freedley and 

Summit streets at their intersection with Dekalb Street. Four-way sign-controlled stops are found 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 5 

Hancock Elementary School 

Figure 2: Aerial view of study area 

on Arch Street at East Freedley (which continues east of Arch Street as an access drive for an 

apartment complex), Summit (continuing east of Arch Street as Hancock Elementary’s driveway), 

and East Brown streets. The only crossing guard on Dekalb Street is stationed at the East Brown 

Street intersection. 

Source: DVRPC Interactive Mapping, Pennsylvania Traffic Counts, 14 March 2007, 

<www.dvrpc.org>.

Table 1: Traffic counts in the study area 

Street name Year Direction From To AADT 

Dekalb St 2002 North Spruce St Fornance St 8738 

Dekalb St 1999 North Spruce St Fornance St 8796 

Fornance St 2000 Both Dekalb St Markley St 7892 

Fornance St 1998 Both New Hope Ave Arch St 9285 

Fornance St 2003 Both New Hope Ave Arch St 9310 

Arch St 1999 Both Airy St Fornance St 6519 
6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

The school directly abuts a large swath of passive linear open space known as Bartasch Park. A 

paved walkway connects the school’s rear parking area with a residential neighborhood on the 

eastern side of the park.

Six (6) crashes involving pedestrians occurred on Dekalb Street between East Fornance and East 

Brown streets from 2001 through 2005. Two (2) of those crashes involved juvenile pedestrians; 

one of those crashes was a hit-and-run incident. Two (2) crashes involved a motorist turning left 

into a pedestrian who was in the crosswalk; in another crash, the motorist failed to yield. One (1) 

crash involved a school crossing guard. None of the crashes resulted in a fatality. 

The crash data was provided by PennDOT for DVRPC’s traffic safety related transportation planning 

and programming purposes only. The raw data remains the property of PennDOT and its release to 

third parties is expressly prohibited without the written consent of the Department. 

3. Audit summary 

The audit was conducted on the afternoon of Tuesday, March 20, 2007. Members of the audit 

team are listed in Appendix A. See Appendix B for the agenda. The weather was fair and mild. A 

storm on March 16th and 17th dumped as much as two inches of sleet onto the area. The 

subsequent freeze-thaw cycle created a thick, hard crust of ice which many property owners found 

impossible to remove from sidewalks, driveways and walkways. Ice remnant from the storm was 

present during the audit, covering some sidewalks and blocking wheelchair ramps where it had 

been shoveled from sidewalks and plowed from the street. Meltwater covered sidewalks in some 

locations and ponded at the base of wheelchair ramps where accumulated snow and ice blocked 

gutters and storm drains. Ground saturation also inhibited proper drainage. Just moments before 

the start of the audit, a box-type delivery truck became mired in the soft ground of the buffer strip 

on Dekalb Street in a misguided attempt at street parking. The truck leaned precariously over the 

sidewalk until it was towed. 

The audit team walked each of the streets described in section 2, on each side of the street, and 

recorded conditions using the audit tool presented in Appendix C. The complete audit tool was 

used only on Arch and Dekalb streets; the first page only was used on the other streets to note the 

physical condition of the sidewalks. 

Between 3:00 and 3:30 P.M., the audit team split up to observe pedestrian and motorist behavior 

during school dismissal at the intersections of Summit and Arch streets and Summit and Dekalb 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 7 

Hancock Elementary School 

streets. Behavioral observations were recorded using the Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior 

Observation Sheet presented as Appendix D. 

Photographic documentation of conditions taken before and during the audit is presented in 

appendices E and F. 

3.1. Audit findings 

Table 2 on the following page presents the findings and recommendations of the audit team as 

recorded by the facilitator during the post-audit debriefing. For each recommendation the audit 

team was ask to score, on a scale of -2 to +2, the benefit to pedestrians, the impact on other road 

users, cost and local impacts (e.g. loss of parking, loss of landscaping, noise, light pollution, etc.). 

The scoring system presumes that higher scored recommendations should take priority over those 

receiving lower total scores. The problems, solutions and scores presented in Table 2 reflect a 

consensus of the audit team. The scoring exercise is intended to assist the audit team in 

prioritizing actions. 

3.1.1. Dekalb Street 

The audit team found these conditions throughout: 

 Substandard crosswalks; 

 Substandard wheelchair ramps; 

 Broken and uneven sidewalk pavement; and 

 Broken and deteriorated curbing. 

Crosswalk markings were found faded or completely worn away. Approach warning signs are old 

and obsolete. Wheelchair ramps, in many locations, were found to be not flush at the base with 

the street pavement, and all of them lack tactile warning devices for the visually impaired. 

The intersection of Dekalb and East Fornance streets is signalized, but without pedestrian signal 

heads. The signals, mounted on straight masts, can easily be lost to motorists in the roadside 

visual clutter. Because Dekalb Street is one-way northbound, the signals are facing south; 

therefore pedestrians headed southbound on Dekalb cannot see the signal indication. 
8 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Table 2: Problems and solutions identified by audit team 

 Priority scores 

Street Location Category Problem Solution 

Pedestrian benefit Impacts: other road users Cost Local impacts Total 

Arch 

 W side S 

of E Brown Sidewalks Poor drainage 

Address during next 

resurfacing 2 1 0 1 4 

Arch 

Around 

schools No school zone 

Create 15 mph 

school zone 2 2 2 0 6 

Arch 

W side 

near 

Brown Sidewalks Sidewalks in poor repair Replace/repair 2 1 2 2 7 

Arch all Sidewalks Substandard crosswalks 

Mark crosswalks w/ 

pavement markings, 

signs 2 2 1 0 5 

Arch 

Summit; E 

side Facilities No ramp Install ramp 2 0 2 0 4 

Arch Brown Signs 

Stop sign mounted on 

telephone pole Install sign properly 2 2 0 1 5 

Dekalb 

Throughout Sidewalks Broken/uneven 

pavements/curbs Replace/repair 1 0 2 

Depends: 

who 

pays? 3 

Dekalb 

Throughout Facilities Curb ramps substandard Replace/repair 2 0 2 0 4 

Dekalb 

 W side, n 

of E 

Fornance Facilities Parking lot entrance 

Paint driveway 

crosswalks 1 0 1 0 2 

Dekalb all Facilities 

Invisible crosswalk 

markings 

Mark crosswalks w/ 

pavement markings, 

signs 2 2 1 0 5 

Dekalb Freedley Facilities No ramp Install ramp 2 0 2 0 4 

Dekalb Fornance Facilities No ped signal 

Install ped signals; 

upgrade signals w/ 

overhead mast arm 2 1 2 0 5 

Dekalb Summit Facilities Poor drainage 

Address during next 

resurfacing 2 1 0 1 4 

Dekalb Summit Visibility Tree obstructs view Remove tree 2 2 1 

Live or 

dead? 5 

Dekalb Summit 

Road 

environment 

On-street parking too close 

to intersection Restrict parking 2 -1 1 -1 1 

Dekalb Traffic High P.M. speeds/volumes 

Warning signs w/ 

flashers 2 2 2 0 6 

Dekalb Traffic High P.M. speeds/volumes 

Curb extensions 

(“bulb-outs”) 2 2 2 2 8 

Dekalb Brown Behavior 

Middle school students 

playing "chicken" Assign officer 2 2 2 2 8 

Dekalb Summit Visibility 

Kids entering street to see 

oncoming traffic Restrict parking 2 -1 1 -1 1 

all Signs 

Old yellow/black warning 

signs 

Upgrade to 

flourescent yellowgreen 2 2 1 0 5 

all Facilities Substandard ramps Replace/repair 2 0 2 0 4 

all Facilities Substandard crosswalks Install crosswalks 2 2 1 0 5 

all Behavior 

Middle school students 

playing "chicken" 

Pedestrian safety 

education program 2 2 1 1 6 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 9 

Hancock Elementary School 

The original granite or slate curbing has been worn or depressed over time to the point that they 

no longer function to prevent motor vehicles from encroaching on the sidewalk or to channel 

runoff. 

Of primary concern to the audit team was the perceived high volume and speed of P.M. peak 

traffic. Participants also observed that children often must walk out in to the street to be able to 

see oncoming traffic, their view obscured by parked cars. 

Poor drainage along the curb was observed at several locations, but was noted as a particular 

concern at the intersection of Summit Street. Snow and ice plowed from the street and from 

parking areas was found obscuring sidewalks and wheelchair ramps. 

3.1.2. Arch Street 

The audit team found these conditions throughout: 

 Substandard crosswalks; 

 Substandard wheelchair ramps; 

 Broken and uneven sidewalk pavement; 

 Intermittent sections of sidewalk with uneven brick pavement; 

 Poor drainage of sidewalks and gutters; and 

 Broken and deteriorated curbing. 

Despite the presence of the school, there is no school zone designation on Arch Street. 

3.1.3. Other streets 

The same sidewalk conditions found on Dekalb and Arch streets, including broken pavement, 

deteriorated and uneven brick sections, poor drainage and substandard wheelchair ramps, were 

found on East Brown, East Freedley and Summit streets. Sidewalks on East Fornance Street, 

including the sidewalk fronting the Montgomery County Health and Human Services Center, were in 

good condition. The western half of the pathway linking the school with the neighborhood on the 

far side of Bartasch Park is in poor condition. 
10 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

3.1.4. Behavior 

Many older students from a nearby middle school were observed walking to Hancock presumably to 

“pick up” younger siblings. Some of these older students were observed competing with each 

other in a game of “chicken” with oncoming motorists. 

One parent illegally parked in a crosswalk at Summit and Arch streets while picking up a child from 

school. 

3.2. Principal recommendations 

Through the scoring exercise and subsequent discussion the audit team reached consensus on 

priorities for safety improvements. Capital projects in order of priority are: 

 Refurbish and upgrade marked crosswalks with longitudinal markings and florescent yellowgreen advance warning signs throughout. Install signs with flashers on Dekalb Street. 

 Install overhead signal mast arms and pedestrian signal heads at the Dekalb/East Fornance 

Street intersection. 

 Repair or replace sidewalks throughout. 

 Upgrade wheelchair ramps to current standards, including tactile warning devices. Install 

additional ramps as required. 

 Reconstruct curbs. Improve drainage in gutters at crosswalks and on sidewalks. 

 To calm traffic and increase pedestrian visibility and conspicuity, install curb extensions 

(bulb-outs) at crosswalks on Dekalb Street 

 “Quick fixes” in order of priority are: 

 Create a 15-mph school zone on Arch Street approaching Summit Street. 

 Remove a tree which is obstructing the view at the corner of Dekalb and Summit streets. 

 Mark a crosswalk across a wide driveway to a medical office parking lot on the west side of 

Dekalb Street across from the Health and Human Services Center. 

 Properly install a stop sign currently mounted to a utility pole at the corner of Arch and East 

Brown streets. 

 Assign a traffic officer to the corner of Dekalb and East Brown streets during school 

dismissal times. 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 11 

Hancock Elementary School 

4. Next steps 

In the month following the audit, PennDOT prepared a signing and striping plan for the portion of 

Dekalb Street within the study area. PennDOT, Norristown Borough and Safe Kids Coalition of 

Southeastern Pennsylvania have agreed to negotiate implementation and funding roles and 

determine how the $10,000 grant from the National Safe Kids Coalition should be spent.

Appendix A

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit A-3 

Hancock Elementary School 

Appendix A: Audit Team

Name Title Affiliation E-mail 

Gina Duchossois Chairperson Safe Kids Coalition of SE PA Duchossois@email.chop.edu

John Madera Sr. Transportation 

Planner 

Delaware Valley Regional 

Planning Commission 

jmadera@dvrpc.org

Patty Simons Lieutenant Norristown Police psimons@norristown.org

Kevin Walls Traffic Safety Specialist PennDOT District 6 k.walls@state.pa.us

Appendix B 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit B-3 

Hancock Elementary School 

Appendix B: Audit Agenda 

DELAWARE VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 

SAFE KIDS COALITION of SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA 

Safe Routes to School Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School, Norristown, PA 

Tuesday, March 20, 2007 

AGENDA 

1. Welcome and introductions 

2. Project background and purpose 

3. Overview of the audit process 

4. Study area background 

5. Explanation of the audit checklist 

6. Full audits 

a. Arch Street 

b. DeKalb Street 

7. Sidewalk condition audits 

a. Summit Street 

b. E. Freedley Street 

c. E. Fornance Street 

d. E. Brown Street & Bartasch Park pathways

8. Observation of pedestrian and motorist behavior during school dismissal 

a. Arch Street 

b. DeKalb Street 

9. Post-audit findings review and solutions assessment 

10. Next steps 

11. Safe Kids Walk This Way Task Force business 

Adjourn

Appendix C

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit C-3 

Hancock Elementary School 

Appendix C: Audit Tool 

Location: E. Brown Street/Bartasch Park pathway 

Auditor: .......................................................................................................

Date: 3/20/07 

Key N/A = not applicable 

Note: If a deficiency in the road and/or 

surrounding environment is identified, the 

auditor should specify details of the problem 

and the location in the Comment column. 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

1 Land use and pedestrian context 

1.1 List the key pedestrian generating land uses along the study route. 

2 Sidewalks/walkways 

2.1 Are sidewalks provided on both sides of the street? 

2.2 How wide are the sidewalks? 

2.2.1 Are the sidewalks wide enough (a) for shared use by bicycles? (b) 

to accommodate persons using mobility aids (e.g. cane, wheelchair)? (c) 

to accommodate groups of schoolchildren? 

 

2.3 Are the sidewalks continuous throughout the route? 

2.4 Is the sidewalk in good repair? 

a) clear of obstructions (e.g. poles, awnings, street furniture); 

b) no broken concrete or damaged paving etc.; 

c) clean surfaces (free of litter and dog mess); 

d) limited street furniture (that does not impede pedestrians 

accessibility). * 

 

* Note: Vision impaired pedestrians prefer a free zone next to the 

building line (if fully paved sidewalk); 

 

e) smooth surfaces, but ‘anti-skid’; 

f) no uneven surface; 

g) no protruding tree roots; 

h) clear of overhanging foliage; 

i) no discontinuities in level or type/quality of construction. 

2.5 Are vehicles parking on the sidewalk? If yes, please specify problem 

and location. 

 

2.6 Are pedestrian facilities acceptable where passengers alight, for 

example, bus stops, school drop-off zones etc.? Is seating and shade 

provided? 

 

2.7 Are vertical clearances sufficient for pedestrians (e.g. road signs are 

not mounted too low; tree branches are cut back)? 

 

2.8 Are there driveways with heavy vehicular traffic (volume or vehicle 

type) e.g. to parking garages and shopping centers? Are these driveways 

at the same level as the sidewalk? Are tactile ground surface indicators 

provided in accordance with ADA? Is there good pedestrian and driver 

visibility? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
C-4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

3 Pedestrian facilities and accessibility 

3.1 Are there curbs? Are the curbs in good condition? 

3.2 Do pedestrians have difficulty in crossing the road safely? 

3.2.1 Are there marked crosswalks? If yes, what type (e.g. transverse, 

continental, gore, textured, lit in-pavement)? 

 

3.2.2 Are crosswalks sited where people want to cross? 

3.2.3 Are the marked crosswalks well maintained and legible to motorists 

day and night? 

 

3.2.4 Are crosswalks clearly signed to motorists by the use of pedestrian 

warning signs? Are the signs high-visibility florescent yellow-green? 

 

3.2.5 Do motorists yield to pedestrians in crosswalks? 

3.2.6 Are there in-road yield-to-pedestrian channelizing devices in place? 

3.2.7 Does the site have audio tactile devices for vision impaired 

pedestrians? Are they working and audible? 

 

3.3 Are there pedestrian signal heads? If so, which type (man/hand, 

walk/don't walk, audible, countdown)? Are they working and in good 

condition? 

 

3.3.1 Are they push-button actuated? Are pedestrians likely to use the 

actuator? 

 

3.3.2 Can persons in wheelchairs reach the push button at pedestrian 

signals? 

 

3.3.3 Have pedestrians been given priority at signalized crossings on bus 

routes? 

 

3.3.4 At signalized crossings, do all pedestrians have adequate time to 

cross the road safely? 

 

3.4 Are curb ramps provided on all corners? 

3.4.1 Can vision impaired people identify the crossing, e.g., are tactile 

ground surface indicators provided in accordance with ADA? 

 

3.4.2 Do the curb ramps provide a smooth change in level between the 

sidewalk and the road pavement? 

 

3.4.3 Are the ramp slopes appropriate? 

3.4.4 Is there sufficient space to turn wheelchair at top and bottom of 

ramp? 

 

3.4.5 Is drainage at/near curb ramps adequate to prevent water ponding? 

3.5 Are curb extensions used where appropriate? Are they clearly 

delineated? 

 

3.6 Are signs and pavement markings installed in accordance with 

MUTCD? 

 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit C-5 

Hancock Elementary School 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

4 Catering for pedestrian target groups 

4.1 Is there a predominance of special user groups (e.g. 

intoxicated, seniors, youths, young children, parents with 

strollers, disabled, tourists)? If yes, what type? 

 

4.2 Are there problems specific to these special user 

groups? 

 

4.3 Do pedestrians regularly misuse or ignore the 

pedestrian facilities? Please specify. 

 

5 Around Schools 

5.1 Is there a school zone? 

5.2 What is the school zone speed limit? 

5.3 Is a school crossing provided? 

5.4 Is the crossing supervised? 

5.5 Are school entrances appropriately located? 

5.6 Are appropriate advance warning signs provided? 

5.7 Is there any parking (legal and illegal) that causes 

visibility obstruction to the crossing? 

 

6 Traffic and road environment 

6.1 What is the posted speed limit? 

6.2 How many travel lanes are on the roadway(s) (in each 

direction)? 

 

6.3 Are there parking lanes (or bus lanes) on the side of 

the road? 

 

6.4 Can parking be managed to maximize sight lines? 

6.5 Is traffic speed or volume a problem for pedestrians? 

Please specify. 

 

6.6 Are there traffic calming devices in place? If so, which 

type? 

 

6.7 Do these devices impede pedestrian movement? 

 

6.8 Are there any conflicts between vehicles (or bicycles 

and/or wheeled recreational devices) and pedestrians on 

sidewalks? 

 

6.9 Is a crash barrier necessary between the road way and 

the sidewalk for pedestrian safety? 

 

7 Construction zones 

7.1 Are pedestrians warned of obstructions and temporary 

works hazards on their traveled path? 

 

7.2 Are alternative routes provided for pedestrians during 

construction that provide suitable access for all 

pedestrians? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
C-6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Issue N/A Yes No Comment 

8 Signing 

8.1 Are street names clearly visible to pedestrians? 

8.2 Is it obvious how to get to the schools, parks or bus 

stops? 

 

8.3 Are the signs visible day and night? 

 

9 Lighting 

9.1 Are crosswalks sufficiently lit for pedestrian and 

motorist visibility? 

 

9.2 Is the sidewalk adequately lit for pedestrians to see 

and feel safe? 

 

9.3 Are there dark places or hiding places which present a 

personal security issue? 

 

10 Visibility/sight distance 

10.1 Is driver’s sight distance to crosswalks adequate? 

10.2 Are pedestrians (including small pedestrians) waiting 

to cross the road visible to approaching motorists? 

 

10.3 Can pedestrians including small children and persons 

in wheelchairs see approaching vehicles? 

 

10.4 Are there temporary or permanent obstructions near 

the crossing facility e.g. parked vehicles, roadside 

furniture, vegetation, fences etc.? 

 

11 Pedestrian fencing 

11.1 Is there a need for pedestrian fencing to channel 

pedestrians to cross the road safely or to prevent them 

from crossing the road at a particular location? 

 

11.2 Does the pedestrian fencing create a hazard to 

motorists? (for example, horizontal rails becoming a 

spearing hazard when impacted by an errant vehicle). 

 

12 Pedestrian amenity 

12.1 Is the pedestrian environment clean and pleasant? If 

not, please specify. 

 

12.2 Is antisocial behavior a problem? 

12.3 Are there seats and/or rest spots for pedestrians? 

12.4 Are there drinking fountains for pedestrians? 

12.5 Is there sufficient shelter and/or shade against the 

elements? 

 

12.6 Is the pedestrian environment integrated with the 

adjacent land uses? 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Appendix D 

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit D-3 

Hancock Elementary School 

Appendix D: Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior Observation Sheet 

Location: Dekalb Street 

Auditor: .......................................................................................................

Date: 3/20/07 

 

Issue Yes No Comment 

Are children walking in the street? 

 

Are children running across street? 

 

Are children obeying crossing guards? 

 

Are children entering the street from between 

parked cars? 

 

Are children entering cars from street side? 

 

Are drivers double parking? 

 

Are drivers blocking crosswalks? 

 

Are drivers obeying crossing guards? 

 

Do unsupervised children look both ways 

before crossing the street? 

 

Do children wait for traffic to stop before 

crossing? 

 

Are adults supervising the crosswalks? 

 

Did you witness any conflicts, collisions or 

near-collisions between motorists and 

pedestrians? 

 

Do drivers yield to pedestrians in the 

crosswalks? 

 

Do drivers obey the school zone speed limit? 

 

Other observations 

 

 

Source: DVRPC, 2007

Appendix E

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit E-3 

Hancock Elementary School 

Appendix E: Pre-audit photos, December 2006 

Counterclockwise from above: 

Dekalb Street looking north across E. Fornance 

Street 

Arch Street at the entrance to Hancock Elementary School 

Mid-block on Summit Street 

Dekalb Street at E. Freedley Street 

Source: Cynthia Cianciulli, Coordinator, Highway Safety Program, Montgomery County Department of Health, 2006 

Appendix F

Pedestrian Road Safety Audit F-3 

Hancock Elementary School

Appendix F: Audit day photo log 

Top: Dekalb Street 

(US 202) looking north 

from E. Freedley 

Street. 

Middle: Dekalb Street 

looking south from E. 

Freedley Street 

Bottom: Arch Street 

looking south from E. 

Brown Street 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
F-4 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Right: Ponding on uneven brick sidewalk, E. 

Brown Street, south side, between Green 

Street and Morgan Alley 

Bottom right: Ponding on uneven, deteriorated brick sidewalk, Arch Street, west side, 

between E. Brown and Summit streets. 

Below: Uneven brick sidewalk, E. Brown 

Street, south side 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit F-5 

Hancock Elementary School

Top left: Sidewalk used for snow storage, Willow Street, east side, between E. 

Freedley and E. Fornance streets 

Center left: Sidewalk obstructed by 

snow and vegetation, Willow Street, east 

side, just north of E. Freedley Street. 

Above and bottom left: Broken sidewalk pavement, E. Brown Street 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
F-6 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Dekalb Street. Top and bottom left: 

ponding at base of wheelchair ramps. 

Above: unmarked crosswalk of parking 

lot entrance; truck mired in the buffer 

strip can be seen in the background. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit F-7 

Hancock Elementary School

Top left: Main building entrance, Hancock 

Elementary School 

Middle and bottom left: broken pavement 

along school entrance walkway 

Top right: Car parked illegally in crosswalk 

during school dismissal 

Above: No wheelchair ramp, southwest 

corner of E. Freedley and Arch streets 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 
F-8 Pedestrian Road Safety Audit 

Hancock Elementary School 

Left: Pathway connecting Hancock 

Elementary School with High Street 

across Bartasch Park, progressing 

eastward from the top to the bottom 

photo. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007
Pedestrian Road Safety Audit F-9 

Hancock Elementary School

Left: Ponding and uncleared snow obstruct 

wheelchair access, Dekalb Street, various locations 

Above: This wheelchair ramp is not compliant 

with ADA regulations because the base is not 

flush with the roadway, making wheelchair 

passage difficult; also, there is no tactile warning device for the vision-impaired. 

Source: DVRPC, 2007 

Planning for Safe Routes to School, Pedestrian Road Safety Audit: 

Hancock Elementary School, Norristown PA 

Publication No.: 07056 

Date Published: February 2008 

Geographic Area Covered: Norristown Borough (Montgomery County) 

Key words: pedestrian, juvenile, road safety audit, Safe Routes to School 

Abstract: A road safety audit focusing on juvenile pedestrians was conducted on a portion of US 

202 and other streets near Hancock Elementary School, Norristown. Results and recommendations 

are presented. 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 

190 North Independence Mall West 

8th Floor 

Philadelphia, PA 19106-1520 

Phone: 215.592.1800 

Fax: 215.592.9125 

Internet: www.dvrpc.org

Contact: 

John Madera, PP, AICP 

Senior Transportation Planner 

Office of Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning 

215-238-2854 

jmadera@dvrpc.org