Guidance to Improve Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

COUNTERMEASURES 109 Appendix: Countermeasure Glossary This Countermeasure Glossary provides supplemental information on each of the countermeasures recommended in this Guide. Each countermeasure located in this appendix provides key information for practitioners to consider when assessing, choosing, refining, and finalizing countermeasures to address specific crash types or safety performance objectives. Where available and applicable, research citations are provided in the countermeasure rating. When assessing potential countermeasures to address specific crash types or safety performance objectives, practitioners are encouraged to examine other countermeasures profiled in PEDSAFE and BIKESAFE, as well as other sources. Note that for most crash types, multiple countermeasures may be applicable. Not all countermeasures included in the glossary are currently MUTCD compliant. Details are provided on each countermeasure sheet at the end of the countermeasure description. The Countermeasure Glossary is arranged in alphabetical order for ease of reference. The countermeasures include traffic signs, pavement markings, traffic signals, lighting, signal timing changes, detection treatments, and geometric treatments, thus providing a diversity of options to treat safety issues. Many of the geometric treatments can be implemented on a temporary or trial basis through the use of a combination of traffic control devices and temporary curbing or flexible delineators. Each glossary entry provides the following information: • Countermeasure description. A brief description of the countermeasure and how it works. • Crash Modification Factor (CMF)/rating. If a CMF is available, it is listed, along with the crash types to which it is applicable. If no CMF is available, a summary of the latest understanding from research is presented. • Example applications. Photos or illustrations showing the countermeasure in use. • Applicable crash types. Common crash types that may be addressed by the countermeasure; note that the countermeasure may also be applicable to less-common crash types not listed. • Applicable contexts. Contexts in which the countermeasure is appropriate for use. • Complementary countermeasures. Other countermeasures that should accompany the countermeasure; other countermeasures that may accompany the countermeasure. • Considerations. Design considerations to maximize the countermeasure’s effectiveness, potential non-safety effects, situations where the countermeasure may be unsuitable, and other information to consider when eval- uating the countermeasure. • Systemic safety potential. Information about whether the countermeasure is appropriate for use systemically, or better used as a spot treatment. • Estimated cost. Approximate cost to design and install the countermeasure, as of the time of writing, provided as one of four cost ranges: $ = <2,500 $$ = 2,500–49,999 $$$ = 50,000–150,000 $$$$ = >150,000 • Potential effects on travel modes. A brief listing of potential positive and negative effects to each travel mode. • Alternative treatments. A listing of alternatives to the countermeasure, if applicable. • Additional information. A listing of additional resources to learn more about the countermeasure.

COUNTERMEASURESAPPENDIX: COUNTERMEASURE GLOSSARY 110 Table of Countermeasures Countermeasure Applicable to Appendix Page NumberSignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Active Warning Beacons 117 Advance Stop/Yield Lines 119 All-Walk Phase 121 Bicycle Lane Extension Through Intersections 123 Bicycle Signals 125 Bike Boxes 127 Continuous Raised Medians or Hardened Centerlines 129 Crossing Barriers 131 Crossing Islands 133 Curb Extensions 135 Curb Radius Reduction 137 Gateway Treatments (R1-6 Signs) 139 Grade-Separated Crossings 141 High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings 143 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 145 Leading Bicycle Interval 147 Leading Pedestrian Interval 149 Lighting 151 Mini-Traffic Circles 153 Mixing Zone Treatments 155 No Turn on Red Signs 157 Parking Restrictions at Crossing Locations/Daylighting 159 Passive Bicycle Signal Detection 161 Pedestrian Countdown Signals 163 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 165 Protected Intersections 167 Protected Phases 169 Raised Crossings 171 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon 173 Road Diet/Rechannelization 175 Roundabout 177 Signal Timing 179 Traffic Signals 181 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes 183

111 COUNTERMEASURES Countermeasure Summary Matrix (Table 25) This is a copy of the Countermeasure Summary Matrix included as Table 25 in Chapter 4. It is included to function as a quick reference for the Appendix. It provides a high-level summary of the effectiveness, public process needs, and applicability to specific crash types of the countermeasures included in the Appendix. Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop 1 to 5 scale: 1 = no public process and 5 = extensive public process M ot or is t f ai le d to y ie ld to pe de st ria n Pe de st ria n fa ile d to y ie ld Pe de st ria n da sh Bi ke c ro ss in g pa th s wi th un co nt ro lle d m ot or is t Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – ST OP s ig n M ot or is t d riv es o ut in to bi ke – S TO P co nt ro lle d Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – si gn al iz ed in te rs ec tio n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to bi ke – s am e di re ct io n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to bi ke – o pp os ite d ire ct io n Active Warning Beacons M M L 1 Advance Stop/Yield Lines H M L 1 All-Walk Phase M H H 3 Bicycle Lane Extension through Intersections M L L 1 Bicycle Signals M M H 1 Bike Boxes M M M 1 Continuous Raised Medians H H H 4 Hardened Centerlines H H H 1 Crossing Barriers L M H 5 Note: H = High, M = Medium, L = Low Table of Countermeasures Countermeasure Applicable to Appendix Page NumberSignalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Active Warning Beacons 117 Advance Stop/Yield Lines 119 All-Walk Phase 121 Bicycle Lane Extension Through Intersections 123 Bicycle Signals 125 Bike Boxes 127 Continuous Raised Medians or Hardened Centerlines 129 Crossing Barriers 131 Crossing Islands 133 Curb Extensions 135 Curb Radius Reduction 137 Gateway Treatments (R1-6 Signs) 139 Grade-Separated Crossings 141 High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings 143 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs 145 Leading Bicycle Interval 147 Leading Pedestrian Interval 149 Lighting 151 Mini-Traffic Circles 153 Mixing Zone Treatments 155 No Turn on Red Signs 157 Parking Restrictions at Crossing Locations/Daylighting 159 Passive Bicycle Signal Detection 161 Pedestrian Countdown Signals 163 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 165 Protected Intersections 167 Protected Phases 169 Raised Crossings 171 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon 173 Road Diet/Rechannelization 175 Roundabout 177 Signal Timing 179 Traffic Signals 181 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes 183

112 COUNTERMEASURESCOUNTERMEASURE SUMMARY MATRIX (TABLE 25) Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop 1 to 5 scale: 1 = no public process and 5 = extensive public process M ot or is t f ai le d to y ie ld to pe de st ria n Pe de st ria n fa ile d to y ie ld Pe de st ria n da sh Bi ke c ro ss in g pa th s wi th un co nt ro lle d m ot or is t Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – ST OP s ig n M ot or is t d riv es o ut in to bi ke – S TO P co nt ro lle d Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – si gn al iz ed in te rs ec tio n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to bi ke – s am e di re ct io n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to bi ke – o pp os ite d ire ct io n Crossing Islands H H H 3 Curb Extensions M M M 1 Curb Radius Reduction M M M 1 Gateway Treatments (R1-6 Signs) H M L 1 Grade-Separated Crossings L M H 5 High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings H H H 1 In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs H M L 1 Leading Bicycle Interval H H H 1 Leading Pedestrian Interval H H H 1 Lighting H H H 4 Mini-Traffic Circles M M M 4 Mixing Zone Treatments M L L 3 No Turn on Red Signs H H H 1 Note: H = High, M = Medium, L = Low

113 COUNTERMEASURES Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop 1 to 5 scale: 1 = no public process and 5 = extensive public process M ot or is t f ai le d to y ie ld to pe de st ria n Pe de st ria n fa ile d to y ie ld Pe de st ria n da sh Bi ke c ro ss in g pa th s wi th un co nt ro lle d m ot or is t Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – ST OP s ig n M ot or is t d riv es o ut in to bi ke – S TO P co nt ro lle d Bi ke ri de s th ro ug h/ ou t – si gn al iz ed in te rs ec tio n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to pe de st ria n pa ra lle l p at h M ot or is t r ig ht tu rn in g in to bi ke – s am e di re ct io n M ot or is t l ef t t ur ni ng in to bi ke – o pp os ite d ire ct io n Parking Restrictions at Crossing Locations/ Daylighting H H H 2 Passive Bicycle Signal Detection H H H 1 Pedestrian Countdown Signals H H H 1 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon M H H 1 Protected Intersections H H H 3 Protected Phases M H H 4 Raised Crossings M H H 3 Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon H M L 1 Road Diet/Rechannelization H H H 5 Roundabout H H H 5 Signal Timing H H H 3 Traffic Signals M M M 3 Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes M M M 1 Note: H = High, M = Medium, L = Low

114 COUNTERMEASURESDESIGN TRADE-OFFS OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES (TABLE 29) Design Trade-Offs of Safety Countermeasures (Table 29) This is a copy of the Design Trade-Offs of Safety Countermeasures included as Table 29 in Chapter 6. It is included to provide a quick reference for the Appendix. It provides a relative qualitative assessment of each countermeasure’s potential effect on the operations, safety, and comfort of roadway users traveling by different modes. For the purposes of this table, it is assumed that transit passengers will experience the same effects as motorists. When the effect is neither positive nor negative, no rating is provided, as indicated by “+ / −.” The table also provides relative costs, relative spatial impact of the countermeasure, and amount of public process typically required to implement the countermeasure. Spatial Impact Estimated Cost Maintenance Cost Public Process Motorists Pedestrians Bicyclists Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety Active Warning Beacons Small $$ $$ 1 + / − + / − + / − + / − + + + / − + + Advance Stop/ Yield Lines Small $ $ 1 + / − + / − + + / − ++ ++ + / − ++ ++ All-Walk Phase Small $ $ 3 − − ++ ++ − − ++ ++ − − ++ ++ Bicycle Lane Extension through Intersections Moderate $ $ 1 + / − + + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − + + Bicycle Signals Small $$ $$ 1 + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − ++ + Bike Boxes Moderate $$ $$ 1 − + + / − + / − ++ + + ++ + Continuous Raised Medians Moderate $$ $$ 4 + / − + / − + − + ++ − + ++ Hardened Centerlines Small $ $ 1 + / − + / − + − + ++ − + ++ Crossing Barriers Moderate $$ $$ 5 ++ ++ ++ − − − − ++ − − − − ++ Crossing Islands Moderate $$ $$ 3 + / − + / − + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Curb Extensions Moderate $$ $$ 1 + / − ++ + / − ++ ++ + ++ ++ + Curb Radius Reduction Moderate $$ $$ 1 − − − + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Gateway Treatments (R1-6 Signs) Small $ $ 1 + / − − + / − + + ++ + + ++ Grade-Separated Crossings Large $$$$ $$$$ 5 + / − ++ ++ − − − − ++ − − − − ++

115 COUNTERMEASURES Spatial Impact Estimated Cost Maintenance Cost Public Process Motorists Pedestrians Bicyclists Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Small $ $ 1 + / − + + / − + + + + + + In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs Small $ $ 1 + / − − + / − + + + + + + Leading Bicycle Interval Small $$ $$ 1 − + + / − + + + + + + Leading Pedestrian Interval Small $ $ 1 − + + / − + ++ + + ++ + Lighting Small $$ $$ 4 + + ++ + + ++ + + ++ Mini-Traffic Circles Large $$ $$ 4 − − + − − + − − + / − Mixing Zone Treatments Moderate $$ $$ 3 + + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − − + No Turn on Red Signs Small $ $ 1 − − + / − ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Parking Restrictions at Crossing Locations/ Daylighting Moderate $ $ 2 + / − + ++ + + ++ + + ++ Passive Bicycle Signal Detection Small $$ $$ 1 + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − + / − ++ ++ + Pedestrian Countdown Signals Small $$ $$ 1 + / − + / − + / − + ++ ++ + ++ ++ Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Small $$$ $$$ 4 − + + + ++ ++ + ++ ++ Protected Intersections Large $$$$ $$$$ 3 − ++ + + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Protected Phases Small $ $ 4 − − ++ + − − ++ ++ − − ++ ++ Raised Crossings Moderate $$ $$ 3 − − + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

116 COUNTERMEASURESDESIGN TRADE-OFFS OF SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES (TABLE 29) Spatial Impact Estimated Cost Maintenance Cost Public Process Motorists Pedestrians Bicyclists Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety Operations User Comfort Safety Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Small $$ $$ 1 + / − + / − + / − + / − + + + + + Road Diet/ Rechannelization Large $$ $$ 5 − + / − ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ Roundabout Large $$$$ $$$$ 5 + + + + + + − + / − + − + / − Signal Timing Small $ $ 3 + / − + / − + + + + + + + Traffic Signals Small $$$$ $$$$ 3 + / − + + / − + / − + + / − + / − + + / − Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes Small $ $ 1 + / − + + / − + / − + + / − + / − + + / − KEY ++ very positive benefit + positive benefit + / − neutral − disbenefit − − strong disbenefit Relative Cost $ = <2,500 $$ = 2,500–49,999 $$$ = 50,000–150,000 $$$$ = >150,000 Public Process 1. No public process, engineering decision 2. Public notice, engineering decision 3. Minimal public process, engineering decision 4. Moderate public process needed to build partner agency and community support 5. Extensive public process needed to build community and political support

COUNTERMEASURES 117 Active warning beacons are user-actuated flashing lights that supplement warning signs at unsignalized crossings (NACTO 2012), including path and road crossings. Active warning beacons are distinguished from rapid flashing beacons and pedestrian hybrid beacons by their flash rate which may only vary from 50 to 60 flashes per minute (MUTCD). Active warning beacons can be actuated manually by a button or automatically with passive detection. The purpose of an active warning beacon is to alert drivers to the presence of people crossing the road. Active warning beacons can be a lower-cost alternative to rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons. Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Unsignalized crossings. • High pedestrian and/or bicycle volumes. • Crossings where driver yielding is low. CMF/Rating A CMF for this treatment has not been developed. Existing studies indicate motorist yielding varies from 25 to 76 percent, with an unclear relationship to roadway characteristics. Actuated beacons are typically more effective than continuous flashing beacons (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006). Active Warning Beacons Figure 1. Active warning beacons (image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURES 118 ACTIVE WARNING BEACONS Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian detection—either active (button) or passive detection. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. May be installed with the following treatments: • Raised median refuge island. • Yield to Pedestrian sign (MUTCD R1-5 series). • Lighting. • In-street pedestrian crossing signs. • Gateway treatment. • Passive bicycle detection. Considerations • Most effective when actuation is required. • Active beacons may be useful for advance warning conditions, such as when drivers are heading around a curve or approaching an intersection or crossing with poor sightlines. • Beacons should be dark when not in use. • Beacons should not be applied to crossings already controlled by YIELD signs, STOP signs, or traffic sig- nals. • This treatment is appropriate for both intersection and midblock crossings. • If intended for use by bicyclists, push button actuation should be located so bicyclists can activate the signal without dismounting (NACTO 2012). • Active beacons are most effective when user actuation (active or passive) is required, resulting in the beacon flashing only when a crossing pedestrian is present. • Beacons may be used on warning signs placed in advance of intersection to alert turning motorists to the potential presence of crossing pedestrians or bicyclists. Systemic Safety Potential This type of treatment is best suited for spot treatments; installing active warning beacons in too many places may reduce compliance. Estimated Cost       The cost of an active warning beacon varies by type of treatment installed, with costs between $5,000 and $10,000. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce travel speed when beacons are activated (Carson et al. 2005) • Occasional slight delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • May reduce multiple-threat crashes • May reduce delay Pedestrians • May increase safety • May reduce multiple-threat crashes • May reduce delay Large Trucks • Occasional slight delay Alternative Treatments • Rectangular rapid flash beacon. • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate if MUTCD requirements are met. • Full traffic signal—appropriate if MUTCD requirements are met. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

COUNTERMEASURES 119 Advance stop/yield lines are pavement markings placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of an uncontrolled and unsignalized pedestrian or bicycle crossing. This treatment increases the distance between where drivers have stopped or yielded and the crosswalk or bicycle crossing, which improves the visibility of crossing pedestrians and bicyclists to motorists and helps to reduce multiple- threat crashes. CMF/Rating 0.75 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al. 2017) The safety benefits of advance stop/yield lines at unsignalized bicycle crossings have not yet been studied. Advance Stop/ Yield Lines Figure 2. Advance stop lines with active warning beacons (source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Uncontrolled multilane crossings (at least two lanes in one direction) (Blackburn et al. 2017). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURES 120 ADVANCE STOP/YIELD LINES Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. • Warning signs (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1) or pedestrian hybrid beacons. • Parking restrictions/daylighting. • Curb ramps. May be installed with the following treatments: • Active warning beacons. • Rectangular rapid flash beacons. • Raised median. • Raised crossings. • Crossing islands. • Curb extensions. • Lighting. Considerations • If placed too far in advance of the crosswalk, motorists may ignore the line. • This treatment is appropriate at both intersection and midblock crossings. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement at all uncontrolled crossings of roadways with at least four lanes and posted speeds of at least 30 mph. Estimated Cost       The cost to paint advance stop/yield lines varies, but is likely between $200 and $350. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Increases visibility of other parties in intersection • Reduces conflicts with pedestrians (Zegeer et al. 2017) Bicyclists • May reduce conflicts between bicyclists and other vehicles • May reduce multiple-threat crashes Pedestrians • Reduces conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles (Zegeer et al. 2017) Large Trucks • Increases visibility of other parties in intersection Alternative Treatments • Traffic signal—appropriate where volumes warrant a signal. • Half-signal (e.g., pedestrian hybrid beacon)—appropriate where pedestrians or bicyclists need predictability in crossing, but overall volumes do not warrant a signal. Additional Information • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 121 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Densely populated urban areas, often in downtown areas. • Signalized intersections with high instances of turn- ing-vehicle–pedestrian conflicts. • High pedestrian volumes and either low-to-moderate vehicle volumes or high turning-vehicle volumes. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Pedestrian countdown signal. • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian detection—either active (push button) or passive detection (if actuation required). • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). May be installed with the following treatments: • Lighting. • Passive detection. An all-walk phase, also known as a “Barnes Dance,” “pedestrian scramble,” or exclusive pedestrian phase, is a phase at signalized intersections that allows pedestrians to cross in any direction. Vehicles at all approaches to the intersection are stopped while pedestrians are given the WALK signal. This low-cost treatment can increase pedestrian safety by separating pedestrians from vehicles and may improve the efficiency of intersections. It is particularly advantageous in situations where other intersection treatments are cost prohibitive or unable to be implemented due to insufficient right-of-way. CMF/Rating 0.66 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (ITE 2004) All-Walk Phase Figure 3. All-walk phase (source: FHWA). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESALL-WALK PHASE 122 Considerations • Typically requires longer overall signal cycle lengths which increases delay for all users. • Nonvisual guidance should be provided for pedestrians who are visually impaired so that they know when it is an appropriate time to cross; normal auditory cues are not applicable at locations with exclusive pedestrian phases. • Sidewalk spaces must be sufficient to handle a queue of pedestrians waiting to cross. • The signal timing required for this treatment must be implemented in concert with adjacent intersections to ensure appropriate signal coordination. Systemic Safety Potential Potential for systemic use in areas where there are existing pedestrian signals, very high pedestrian volumes, high instances of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts, and high turning-vehicle volumes. Estimated Cost       Costs vary depending on whether crosswalks need to be repainted or signs need to be added. In most situations, pedestrian signals will already be installed and the cost of reprogramming signals is minimal, requiring only a few hours of staff time. The average pedestrian signal costs approximately $1,500; however, costs may be higher if implemented with auditory cues for visually impaired people. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with other road users (ITE 2004) • May increase delay Bicyclists • May increase delay Pedestrians • Can increase pedestrian safety • May increase efficiency Large Trucks • May increase delay Alternative Treatments • No Right Turn on Red restrictions—appropriate for roadways with sufficient capacity for vehicle queue and lower pedestrian volumes. • Vehicle turn lanes and dedicated turn signals— appropriate in situations with sufficient right-of-way and funding for retrofits, and with moderate pedestrian volumes. • Prohibit vehicle access—appropriate in places with heavy pedestrian and bicycle volumes, such as areas in dense urban centers. Additional Information • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Counter­ measure Selection System

COUNTERMEASURES 123 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Locations with bicycle lanes or separated bike lanes where it is desired to delineate the bicycle crossing. • Locations where right- or left-turning vehicles cross through moving bicyclists, especially at intersections along major bike routes. • At wide or complex intersections where the bicyclist path is unclear (NACTO 2012). Special Circumstances • A bicycle lane extension may be located parallel with a pedestrian crosswalk at separated bike lane locations • A bicycle lane extension may be used to delineate shared-use path crossings where the majority of the path traffic consists of bicyclists Bicycle lane extension pavement markings through intersections are intended to provide bicyclists with a clear, highly visible pathway through an intersection and create a safer bicycling environment. They also help to alert motorists to the presence of bicycle through-traffic and encourage turning motorists to yield to through moving bicyclists. The pavement within the bicycle lane extension can include green color. The color may be applied with paint, durable liquid pavement markings, thermoplastic, or colored asphalt. CMF/Rating CMFs for this treatment have not been developed for the U.S. context. Existing studies indicate that when used to highlight key conflict points this treatment may improve bicyclist safety via increased motorist yielding, reduced conflicts with turning vehicles, and increased predictability of bicyclist location (Hunter et al. 2000; Brady et al. 2010; Jensen 2008). Bicycle Lane Extension Through Intersections Figure 4. Bicycle lane extensions through intersections (left image source: NACTO; right image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESBICYCLE LANE EXTENSION THROUGH INTERSECTIONS 124 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle lanes. • Separated bike lanes. May be installed with the following treatments: • Bike box. • Two-stage turn queue box. • Bicycle signal. • Leading bicycle interval. • Crossing islands. • Protected intersections. • Mixing zones. • Lighting. • Green-colored pavement. • Passive bicycle signal detection. Considerations • Long-term maintenance cost should be considered prior to installation. • Local weather conditions, marking placement, and marking material will affect pavement marking dura- bility. • Thin, durable, non-skid thermoplastic material is gener- ally preferred for bicyclists. • Since the effectiveness of markings depends entirely on their visibility, maintaining markings should be a high priority. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement at intersections along major bike routes with high frequencies of turning-vehicle conflicts with bicyclists. Estimated Cost       The cost of installing colored pavement markings will vary depending on the surface area of marking, material used, and whether or not pavement makings are colored. Costs may range from $200 to $1,500 per intersection (Weigand et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety through increased bicyclist predictability Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May increase safety through increased bicyclist predictability • May improve awareness of adjacent crossing Large Trucks • May increase safety through increased bicyclist predictability Alternative Treatments • No Turn on Red restriction—appropriate in locations with history of right-hook conflicts with bicyclists. • Leading bicycle interval—may be appropriate in loca- tions where bicyclists have increased risk of conflicts with turning traffic at the onset of a green signal phase. • Protected phases—may be appropriate in locations where bicyclists have increased risk of conflicts with high volumes of turning traffic. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 125 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections with high bicycle volumes and high turning-vehicle volumes. • Locations where a highly used bicycle route (includ- ing shared-use path) must cross a major, signalized intersection to connect users to the rest of the route (sometimes requiring bicyclists to cross diagonally). • Intersections with contraflow bike lanes or separated bike lanes. • Intersections where a bicycle facility transitions from a cycle track to a bicycle lane. • Complex intersections that may otherwise be difficult for bicyclists to navigate. A bicycle signal is a traffic signal with a green, yellow, and red display intended to control bicycle movements. The display may include arrows or a bicycle-shaped symbol. Bicycle signals are necessary to indicate a leading or protected phase for bicycle movements. This may sometimes require an additional phase be added to the traffic signal cycle. Initial studies of bicycle signals indicate that their presence may increase signal compliance and improve safety. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA if used for protected bicycle phases, but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD. FHWA requires an agency to request permission to experiment if using a bicycle signal to apply a leading phase. Bicycle signals can be activated actively or passively. Active detection requires bicyclists to push a button. Buttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to activate the signal. Passive bicycle detection is a preferred option (see passive bicycle signal detection). CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates this treatment may effectively reduce vehicle–bicycle conflicts (Thompson et al. 2013). Bicycle Signals Figure 5. Bicycle signal with exclusive bicycle phase (left image source: Bike Portland; right image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESBICYCLE SIGNALS 126 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle signal sign (MUTCD R10-10; R10-22 if using passive detection; R10-24 or R10-26 if using active detection). • Passive bicycle signal detection. May be installed with the following treatments: • Colored pavement markings through the intersection. • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). • Lighting. • Bicycle detector pavement marking (MUTCD 9C-7) (if using passive detection). Considerations • Bicycle signals should be clearly visible to approaching bicyclists. • Consider bicyclists’ movements when selecting minimum green times and clearance intervals due to slower speeds and start-up times. • Intersection crossing markings should be considered where the bicycle travel path through the intersection is unusual. • Visual variations between vehicular signal heads and bicycle signal heads should be considered (e.g., size, backplate color). • The signal should be installed with actuation and appropriate detection for bicyclists. • Consider supplemental, near-side signals with smaller lenses and lower mounting height to provide additional clarity for bicyclists. • The addition of separated or exclusive bicycle signal phases can increase delay for all users at the intersec- tion, which may decrease compliance. As such, each intersection should be studied carefully to balance the safety and operational needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is generally better suited for spot treatments at intersections that are complicated for bicyclists to navigate, intersect a primary bicycle route, and have high bicycle volumes. An exception to this is where agencies want to create a “green wave” effect by timing bicycle signals along a corridor to allow bicyclists to move through intersections at a consistent speed. Estimated Cost       Bicycle signals cost about $5,000 and increase with the number of signal heads and type of bicycle detection used. Loop detection costs approximately $5,000 and the cost of a button for active detection is approximately $5,000. The costs vary widely based on the type of detection, availability of traffic signal conduit at the intersection, and the age of the equipment. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce crashes with bicyclists (Thompson et al. 2013) • May increase delay, depending on phasing Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May reduce conflicts with bicyclists • May increase delay, depending on phasing Large Trucks • May reduce crashes with bicyclists • May increase delay, depending on phasing Alternative Treatments • Leading pedestrian/bicycle interval—appropriate when a bicycle signal is not warranted due to low volumes of bicyclists but bicyclists would benefit from traveling through the intersection before parallel vehicle traffic. If a leading bicycle interval cannot be installed, bicyclists should be directed to use the pedestrian signal and the signal timing interval should be set with bicyclists’ needs and speeds in mind. This will require permission to experiment from FHWA. • Protected left-turn signal phase for motorists— appropriate for protecting bicyclists if vehicle–bicycle conflicts are associated with “motorist left turn– opposite direction” crashes and conflicts with crossing pedestrians are mitigated. Additional Information • Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030: Appendix D • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 127 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections with medium to high volumes of bicyclists and motor vehicles. • Intersections where large vehicles are common. • Intersections with high volumes of queuing bicyclists. • Intersections with high volumes of turning vehicles and bicyclists going straight. Bike boxes provide space for bicyclists to position themselves in front of vehicles while stopped at a signalized intersection. This treatment provides a predictable place for bicyclists to stop and wait at a signal, allowing them to get out ahead of traffic at the onset of a green signal. Bike boxes are intended to reduce the likelihood of a right-hook (or left-hook) collision at the onset of a green light. In addition to increasing the visibility and predictability of bicyclists, bike boxes provide priority for bicyclists by allowing them to come to the front of the queue. This treatment has been given interim approval to use by FHWA, but is not included in the 2009 MUTCD. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates this treatment can improve bicyclist safety through improved visibility of bicyclists, increased awareness of bicyclists by motorists, increased motorist yielding, and a reduction in right-hook conflicts (Allen et al. 2005; Brady et al. 2010; Dill et al. 2012). Bike Boxes Figure 6. Bike boxes at signalized intersections (image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESBIKE BOXES 128 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle lane up to 50 feet in advance of the bike box. • Stop Here on Red sign (MUTCD R10-6 series). • No Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). May be installed with the following treatments: • Green-colored pavement within the bike lane and bike box. • Yield to Bicyclists sign (MUTCD W11-1; W11-15), if applicable. • “WAIT HERE” legend marking to supplement the stop line. • Leading bicycle interval. • Intersection pavement markings. • Lighting. • Bicycle lane extensions through intersections. Considerations • Stop lines may be placed up to 7 feet in advance of the bike box (PBOT 2010). • Boxes may be disregarded by motorists if not com- monly filled by bicyclists and properly signed (PBOT 2010). • Consider surface color and markings to reduce vehicle encroachment. • Use of this treatment eliminates motorist right‐turn on‐ red which can increase delay. • At locations with higher bicyclist volumes, a bike box can reduce delay for transit and other vehicles by allowing groups of bicyclists to gather and cross as a group through the intersection instead of in a single-file queue (NACTO 2012). Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement at intersections along major bike routes with high frequencies of turning-vehicle conflicts with bicyclists. Estimated Cost       A bike box complete with green thermoplastic, pavement markings (e.g., bike stencil and stop bar), and signage costs approximately $5,000/box (Weigand et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Depending on volumes, may slightly increase or decrease delay • Restricted right turns on red Bicyclists • May increase safety • May reduce delay Pedestrians • May improve pedestrian safety by reducing vehicle encroachment into crosswalks Large Trucks • May slightly increase delay • Restricted right turns on red Alternative Treatments • Leading bicycle interval—appropriate in areas with high volumes of bicyclists where no-turn-on-red restrictions are not feasible. • Bike signal and exclusive or concurrent bike phase —appropriate at intersections along primary bicycle routes where bike boxes are either not feasible or are ineffective. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide • Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030: Appendix D

COUNTERMEASURES 129 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Intersection or midblock crossing locations. • Locations where it is desired to restrict left-turning mo- torists to improve safety, such as those where left-turn- ing motorists do not sufficiently yield, turn too fast, or cut across centerlines. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. May be installed with the following treatments: • All other countermeasures. Continuous raised medians or hardened centerlines are roadway design treatments designed to provide access management and to separate opposing directions of motor vehicle travel at intersections and midblock locations. They can be extended across an intersection or a driveway, creating a continuous median to provide access management restricting motorist turning or crossing movements. They must be at least 6 feet in width to provide pedestrian refuge (see crossing islands) or 8 feet to provide bicyclists refuge. Where used as an access management strategy, they can simplify and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by eliminating motorist left turns. When used at intersections and the hardened centerline or median extends up to or beyond crosswalks, they reduce left-turning motorist speeds. CMF/Rating 0.54 for all crashes (Bahar et al. 2007) 0.69 for vehicle-pedestrian crashes for raised medians (Zegeer et al. 2017) A raised median is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Continuous Raised Medians or Hardened Centerlines Figure 7. Hardened centerline; continuous raised median (left image source: NYCDOT, right image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESCONTINUOUS RAISED MEDIANS OR HARDENED CENTERLINES 130 Considerations • Crossing islands greater than 6 or 8 feet in width and wider crossings should be considered where pedestri- an or bicycle volumes are higher. • Landscaping should not obstruct visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists. • Crossings must be fully accessible by means of ramps or cut-throughs, with detectable warnings. • Fences, railings, and curbs can orient pedestrians to face the direction of oncoming traffic. • This treatment is also applicable at midblock locations. If installing at midblock locations, consider accompa- nying this treatment with an active warning beacon. Special Considerations for Continuous Raised Medians with Crossing Islands • Can be an access management strategy to improve traffic flow and eliminate crashes caused by left-turn- ing motorists; however, this can lead to increases in through-vehicle traffic speeds. • Continuous raised medians can may take up space that can be better used for wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, landscaped buffer strips, or on-street parking. • Emergency vehicles may need to travel within an opposing lane of traffic to bypass congested roadway segments. Special Considerations for Hardened Centerlines • Hardened centerlines can be created with temporary curbing with flexible delineators located on the center- line of a roadway. • Ideally, a hardened centerline may extend past the crosswalk to slow left-turning vehicles; however, vertical elements should not be located within the crosswalk. Systemic Safety Potential Desirable for systemic application along corridors with uncontrolled crossings where motorists are not yielding while turning, or where operating speeds are over 30 mph and motor vehicle volumes are over 9,000 vehicles/ day, necessitating a pedestrian refuge. Should be combined with other treatments. Estimated Cost       The cost for a hardened centerline or continuous raised median varies, but is likely between $2,000 and $40,000 per intersection location. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Can improve motorist safety where crossing island replaces continuous two-way center-turn lanes or at locations where it restricts left turns • Access restrictions may divert traffic to inappropriate routes or increase U-turns Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May increase safety Large Trucks • Required turning radius may impact ability of island to protect crossings Alternative Treatments • Crossing island—a good alternative for multilane roads. • Driveway closure, consolidation, or relocation. • Limited-movement designs for driveways (such as right-in/right-out only). • Intersection designs such as roundabouts or those with reduced left-turn conflicts (such as J-turns, medi- an U-turns, etc.). Additional Information • Chapter 8 of Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide • American Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations • FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures (https://safety. fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/corridor_ac- cess_mgmt/.)

COUNTERMEASURES 131 At some locations, crossing a street or roadway would expose bicyclists and pedestrians to an elevated risk of being struck by a motor vehicle if they attempt to cross at locations which are not designed to provide safe crossings. While it is generally preferred to create safe crossings, in situations where that is not practical or feasible, it may be necessary to consider the installation of continuous barrier or fencing to channelize pedestrians to a safer crossing as signs are not typically effective. CMF/Rating A CMF for this treatment has not been developed; however, a study on this topic indicates that this treatment may improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists (Zhang et al. 2017). Crossing Barriers Figure 8. Raised median with fencing that restricts crossing area to crosswalk (left; image source: Oregon DOT) and raised median with fencing to discourage pedestrians from crossing mid-block (right; image source: Maryland DOT). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Locations with a history of risky pedestrian crossing behavior or crashes which cannot be resolved by other intersection design treatments to create safe crossing conditions. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Curb ramps (if no other accommodations provided). May be installed with the following treatments: • Lighting. • Continuous raised medians. • Grade-separated crossings. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESCROSSING BARRIERS 132 Considerations • When installing a crossing barrier, provide pedestrian wayfinding to alternative crossing location(s). • This treatment may require out-of-direction travel and increase travel time for pedestrians. • People may try to climb or bypass the barriers if they are forced to travel too far out of their way or there are insufficient safe crossings provided along the roadway segment. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is best suited as a spot treatment in areas with high instances of pedestrians attempting to cross at unsafe locations, often across higher speed, multilane roads. Estimated Cost       Costs may vary widely and will depend on barrier length and material used. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety (Zhang et al. 2017) Pedestrians • May increase safety (Zhang et al. 2017) • Will increase out of direction travel, likely increasing delay and decreasing convenience Bicyclists • May increase safety (Zhang et al. 2017) Large Trucks • May increase safety (Zhang et al. 2017) Alternative Treatments • Grade-separated crossings—appropriate where site conditions provide the opportunity for a grade-separated crossing to avoid the obstacle.

COUNTERMEASURES 133 Crossing islands are roadway treatments designed to provide refuge for pedestrians and bicyclists between motor vehicle travel lanes at intersections and midblock locations. To provide pedestrian refuge, they must be a minimum width of 6 feet to meet pedestrian accessibility requirements. To provide bicyclists refuge and to accommodate larger groups of pedestrians, the minimum should be increased to 8 feet. They are also referred to as medians, raised medians, divisional islands, or channelizing islands (between through lanes and turning lanes). They can simplify and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists by reducing crossing distances and creating a place of refuge to allow multiple-stage crossings. They are particularly beneficial at uncontrolled crossings, large signalized crossings, or complex intersections where people may have difficulty completing crossings, and they may be especially helpful for pedestrians who are unable to judge gaps in traffic accurately or who travel slower than the design pedestrian (typically walking at least 3.5 feet per second). Crossing islands can be designed with a Z-crossing to require people to face oncoming traffic which may increase visibility and eye contact. Crossing islands that extend up to or beyond crosswalks can also slow left-turning motorists, providing the same benefit as hardened centerlines or medians. CMF/Rating 0.54 for all crashes (Bahar et al. 2007) 0.69 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes for raised medians (Zegeer et al. 2017) A crossing island is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Crossing Islands Figure 9. Midblock crossing island as part of a continuous median (left) or as a stand-alone feature for an intersection (right) (image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Midblock or intersection crossing locations. • Preferable on all roads with two or more lanes of through traffic in each direction and operating speeds over 30 mph. • Preferable at uncontrolled crossings where traffic gaps are insufficient (60 to 120 safe gaps per hour is preferable). • Should be considered on all roadways where space is available to provide refuge and particularly on roads with medium-to-high speeds and medium-to-high vehicle volumes. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1).

COUNTERMEASURESCROSSING ISLANDS 134 • Curb ramps (if no other accommodation provided). • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. May be installed with the following treatments: • Curb extensions. • Rectangular rapid flash beacons. • In-street pedestrian crossing signs. • Traffic signals. • Raised crossings. • Channelizing fence or barrier. • Gateway treatments. • Active warning beacons. • Lighting. Considerations • Crossing islands greater than 6 or 8 feet in width and wider crossings should be considered where pedestri- an or bicycle volumes are higher. • Landscaping should not obstruct visibility between pedestrians and approaching motorists. • Crossings must be fully accessible by means of ramps or cut-throughs, with detectable warnings. • Fences, railings, and curbs can orient pedestrians to face the direction of oncoming traffic. • This treatment is also applicable at midblock locations. If installing at midblock locations, consider accompa- nying this treatment with an active warning beacon. • This treatment may be part of an access management strategy to improve traffic flow and eliminate crashes caused by left-turning motorists; however, this can increase through-vehicle traffic speeds. Systemic Safety Potential Desirable for systemic application along corridors with uncontrolled crossings where motorist do not consistently yield, or where operating speeds are over 30 mph and motor vehicle volumes are over 9,000 vehicles/day necessitating a pedestrian refuge. Should be combined with other treatments. Interim crossing islands can be constructed with flexible delineators or temporary curbing. Estimated Cost       The cost for a crossing island varies, but is likely between $2,000 and $40,000. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Can improve motorist safety where crossing island replaces continuous two-way center turn lanes or at locations where it restricts left turns • Access restrictions may divert traffic to inappropriate routes or increase U-turns Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May increase safety (Zegeer et al. 2017) Large Trucks • Required turning radius may impact ability of island to protect crossings Alternative Treatments • Continuous raised medians and hardened centerlines— a good alternative for multilane roads. Additional Information • Chapter 8 of Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access: Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide • American Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 135 Curb extensions (also known as “bulb-outs,” or “neck downs”) decrease the width of a roadway through the physical extension of a curb line or sidewalk. Curb extensions may enhance pedestrian safety in several ways, such as by making pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists more visible to each other; by keeping motor vehicles from parking too close to crossings and blocking sight lines; by reducing crossing distance; and by narrowing radii at intersections, which may slow-turning traffic. Curb extensions also tend to allow for better placement of curb ramps and prevent ramps from being blocked by vehicles that park at the corner (Thomas et al. 2016). At signalized locations, it is possible that curb extensions may reduce motorist delay by reducing the amount of signal time that must be devoted to the pedestrian phase due to the shorter crossing distance. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial research indicates this treatment may be effective at increasing driver yielding and improving pedestrian safety (Johnson et al. 2005). Curb Extensions Figure 10. Midblock crossing Island as part of a continuous median or as a stand-alone feature for an intersection or midblock crossing (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Locations with permanent on-street parking. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. May be installed with the following treatments: • Raised median refuge islands. • Active warning beacons. • Rapid rectangular flash beacons. • Pedestrian hybrid beacons. • Pedestrian warning sign (MUTCD W11-2). • Traffic signals. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESCURB EXTENSIONS 136 • Parking restrictions/daylighting. • Lighting. Considerations • Curb extensions should not extend into travel lanes, bicycle lanes, or shoulders (Blackburn et al. 2017). • If funding for full curb extensions is unavailable, curb extensions can be designed using lower-cost alterna- tives, such as bollards, temporary curbs, planters, or striping (NACTO 2012). • The turning needs of larger vehicles, such as school buses, need to be considered in curb extension design to prevent larger vehicles from encroaching onto the curb extension. • Curb extensions can create additional space for curb ramps, as well as landscaping and street furniture that help maintain motorist and pedestrian sightlines. • Curb extensions can require changes to or relocation of drainage structures, which can increase installation cost. Drainage impacts can be minimized with curb extension designs which maintain water flow to exist- ing drainage structures via the use of drainage slots with appropriate solid surface plating at pedestrian crossings. • Curb extensions can be used in conjunction with active bicycle signal actuation buttons so that the button can be immediately adjacent to the bicyclists’ travel path. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment can be used as a spot treatment and also has potential as a systemic safety improvement. Estimated Cost       The cost of a curb extension varies, but is likely between $12,000 and $20,000, depending on the design, site conditions, and materials used. Curb extensions using only paint and/or flexible-delineator posts will likely cost less. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May result in better yielding to pedestrians Bicyclists • May increase safety if used at bicycle crossings Pedestrians • May increase safety (Johnson 2005) Large Trucks • May improve access and turning in areas where on-street parking was previously allowed Alternative Treatments • Parking restrictions/daylighting—appropriate when funding or space for curb extensions is unavailable. Will not reduce crossing distance but can improve visibility of pedestrians. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 137 Curb radius reductions are a strategy to reduce turning speeds for vehicles by forcing sharper turns; they also create larger waiting areas for crossing pedestrians. All curb radius geometries should be designed to prevent turning vehicles from tracking over the curb which could injure people waiting on the corner. The effective radius is influenced by the presence of on-street parking and bike lanes. A curb radius of 5 to 10 feet on streets with parking can generally result in an effective curb radius of 15 to 20 feet, which can accommodate passenger cars and small trucks. A truck apron can be used to provide a curb radius reduction targeted to slow smaller vehicles while accommodating the needs of larger vehicles. CMF/Rating A CMF for this treatment has not been developed; however, evidence suggests that this treatment may effectively slow motorist turning speeds, which can increase opportunities for motorists to yield to pedestrians and reduce the severity of crashes (Thomas et al. 2016). Curb Radius Reduction Figure 11. Curb radius reduction (left) and curb radius reduction with mountable truck apron (right) (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Urban areas. • Areas with low truck volumes. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Curb ramps. • High-visibility crosswalk markings. May be installed with the following treatments: • All countermeasures. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESCURB RADIUS REDUCTION 138 Considerations • A curb radius should be chosen to accommodate the most frequent large design vehicle at the intersection, not the occasional large vehicle size. • Parking or bicycle lanes at an intersection can increase the effective radius. • The effective turning radius of the design vehicle should determine the actual curb radius. • If the actual curb radius is too small, vehicles may drive over the curb placing waiting pedestrians and bicy- clists in danger. • Consider the ability of emergency vehicles to turn using a larger portion of the intersection space when choosing appropriate curb radii (Thomas et al. 2016). • A mountable truck apron raised 2 to 3 inches above the street can be designed to mitigate the negative im- pacts of larger design vehicles. The truck apron radius can be chosen to accommodate a passenger car or small truck, while the actual curb radius can be chosen to accommodate a larger vehicle (e.g., a semi-tractor trailer, type WB-50 or WB-62). The mountable truck apron should be designed to contrast with the adjacent sidewalk and marked crosswalks should extend over the truck apron so that the apron does not appear to be a curb extension (FHWA 2016a). Systemic Safety Potential This treatment can be applied systemically with exceptions for locations with high truck, bus, or other large vehicle use. Estimated Cost       Construction costs for permanently reconstructing tighter turning radii are approximately $15,000 to $40,000 per corner, depending on site conditions. Curb radii reductions achieved using temporary materials, such as flex-posts, can cost much less. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce turning-vehicle speeds, increasing safety for all road users • May result in shorter cycle lengths due to reduced crossing distance (Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning 2015) Bicyclists • May reduce turning-vehicle speeds, increasing safety for all road users Pedestrians • May reduce turning-vehicle speeds, increasing safety for all road users Large Trucks • May make turning more difficult • May result in shorter cycle lengths due to reduced crossing distance Alternative Treatments • Raised crossing/speed table. • Protected intersection. Additional Information • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety and Countermeasure Selection System

COUNTERMEASURES 139 Gateway treatments are created by the placement of Stop or Yield to Pedestrian signs (MUTCD R1-6 or R1-6a) on the left and right side of all travel lanes to create a “gateway configuration” at an uncontrolled crosswalk. The sign may be placed on lane lines or in the gutter of the roadway by the curb. The placement requires motorists to drive between the signs which has been shown to increase motorist awareness of the crossing, reduce approach speeds, and to improve yielding rates. CMF/Rating A CMF for this treatment has not yet been determined. Existing research suggests that the gateway treatment increases safety among pedestrian–vehicle interactions at crosswalks through increases in driver yielding. The treatment is also associated with persistent 4- to 10-mph reductions in motor vehicle speeds (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). Gateway Treatments (R1-6 Signs) Figure 12. Gateway treatment (left image source: Western Michigan University; right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Uncontrolled crossings on roads with speed limits of 30 mph or less (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). • Uncontrolled crossings on roads with speed limits of 35 mph with average annual daily traffic levels below 12,000 (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESGATEWAY TREATMENTS (R1-6 SIGNS) 140 May be installed with the following treatments: • Curb extensions. • Raised median pedestrian refuge island. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Lighting. Considerations • The signs should be placed on both sides of all travel lanes. • They may be located on a center line, a median or crossing island, on a lane line, within a gutter, or near the curb at the edge of the street to create the gateway effect. • The signs should be placed at the crosswalk, but neither the sign nor the sign base should be within the crosswalk or on the crosswalk lines (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). • The narrower the gap between the signs, the more effective the gateway treatment. • A rubberized curb sign base may increase the longevity of the device. Systemic Safety Potential Well-suited as a spot treatment, but there is some potential as a systemic safety treatment along short corridors with multiple uncontrolled crossings and speed limits of less than 35 mph. Estimated Cost       The cost for gateway treatments varies, but is likely between $900 and $1,500, depending on the configuration (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May improve safety • May reduce vehicle speeds Bicyclists • May improve safety • May reduce delay when crossing as a pedestrian Pedestrians • May increase safety (Van Houten et al. 2017) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • May improve safety • May reduce vehicle speeds Alternative Treatments • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate at crossings of multilane roadways with higher speeds and medi- um-to-high vehicle volumes. • Active warning beacons—appropriate at crossings on low-speed roadways and low vehicle volumes. Additional Information • User Guide for R1­6 Gateway Treatment for Pedestrian Crossings • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

COUNTERMEASURES 141 Sometimes it is necessary to completely separate pedestrians and/or bicyclists from vehicular traffic. Grade-separated crossings (also known as overpasses and underpasses) provide complete separation of pedestrians and/or bicyclists from motor vehicle traffic, provide crossings where no other facility is available, and connect off-road trails and paths across major barriers. Grade separation is most feasible and appropriate in extreme cases where pedestrians must cross roadways such as freeways and high-speed, high-volume arterials. CMF/Rating 0.87 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (ITE 2004). Grade-Separated Crossings Figure 13. Overpasses and underpasses (left image source: PEDSAFE; right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Locations where at-grade crossing treatments are not possible or potentially unsafe, such as crossings of free-flow, high-speed highway ramps or railroads. • Locations with high vehicle volumes, high-speed highways, railroad tracks, or natural barriers where it is preferable to prioritize bicycle and pedestrian travel through the intersection to reduce overall delay. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Lighting May be installed with the following treatments: • Wayfinding. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESGRADE-SEPARATED CROSSINGS 142 Considerations • Overpasses and underpasses must accommodate all persons, as required by the American Disabilities Act. • Entrances and exits to overpasses and underpasses should be clearly visible to encourage pedestrian/bicy- clist use. • This treatment should be a measure of last resort to address safety issues at existing at-grade crossings. Grade-separated crossings are poorly utilized when a more direct, at-grade crossing is possible (Bowman et al. 1988) and desirable for users to access destina- tions. • Lighting, drainage, graffiti removal, and security for users should be considered prior to installing under- passes. • Access should be provided to streets and roadways which are crossed unless there are no destinations on those segments. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is best suited as a spot treatment in situations where no other option is feasible. Estimated Cost       The cost of grade-separated crossings varies depending on the size and materials used, but will generally be very expensive. Average costs for underpasses are approximately $120 per square foot and overpasses can cost between $150 to $250 per square foot. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety (Gan et al. 2005) • May reduce delay compared to at grade crossing Bicyclists • May increase safety • May reduce delay compared to at grade crossing Pedestrians • May increase safety Large Trucks • May increase safety (Gan et al. 2005) • May reduce delay compared to at grade crossing Alternative Treatments • Not applicable. Additional Information • Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System

COUNTERMEASURES 143 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • All controlled intersections. • Uncontrolled locations that meet the requirements listed in MUTCD Section 3B.18 (2012). Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Curb ramps. May be installed with the following treatments: • All other countermeasures. High-visibility crosswalk markings, such as continental or ladder-style, are preferred over parallel line markings to improve visibility to approaching motorists. High-visibility crosswalk markings reinforce legal crosswalks at intersections and create legal crossings at nonintersection locations. These crosswalk markings warn motorists to expect pedestrian crossings and clarify that motorists are expected to yield right-of-way to crossing pedestrians. At uncontrolled locations, high-visibility crosswalk markings identify a preferred crossing location for pedestrians. CMF/Rating 0.52 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Chen et al. 2012). High-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Figure 14. High-visibility crosswalk markings (image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESHIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALK MARKINGS 144 Considerations • Crossings with motor vehicle speeds above 30 mph, more than one lane in one direction, or an AADT above 9,000 should supplement high-visibility crosswalk markings with additional treatments (Zegeer et al. 2017). • High-visibility crosswalk marking locations should be convenient for pedestrian access. • High-visibility crosswalk markings must be placed to include the ramp so that a wheelchair user does not have to leave the crosswalk to access the ramp. • At intersections, mark all four legs where possible to reduce crossing exposure for pedestrians. • High-visibility crosswalk markings at nonintersection locations should be supplemented with warning signs (see MUTCD Section 2C.50) and other design features to ensure adequate visibility, and induce motorists yielding. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement at all controlled crossings and designated uncontrolled crossings. Estimated Cost       The cost for high-visibility crosswalk varies, depending on the type of markings used, material, and width of the crossing. The average cost of a high-visibility crosswalk is $2,540, but may be up to $5,000 each (Bushell et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with pedestrians and other vehicles (Chen et al. 2012) Bicyclists • Reduces crashes with pedestrians (Chen et al. 2012) Pedestrians • Reduces crashes with vehicles (Chen et al. 2012) Large Trucks • May improve safety Alternative Treatments • Transverse crosswalk (two parallel white lines)— appropriate only at stop-controlled or signalized inter- sections; not appropriate for uncontrolled locations without supplemental treatments. Additional Information • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 145 This treatment involves placing Stop or Yield to Pedestrian signs (MUTCD R1-6 or R1-6a) in the roadway at the centerline of an uncontrolled crosswalk. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; however, initial evidence indicates this treatment is promising. This treatment is associated with increased driver yielding and slight reductions in vehicle travel speeds when placed at marked crosswalks (Zegeer et al. 2017). In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs Figure 15. In-road signs (left image source: Toole Design Group; right image source: Institute of Traffic Engineers). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Uncontrolled crossings of multilane roadways. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Curb ramps. • High-visibility crosswalk markings. May be installed with the following treatments: • Raised median pedestrian refuge island. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Curb extensions. • Lighting. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESIN-STREET PEDESTRIAN CROSSING SIGNS 146 Considerations • The signs should be placed on a center line, on a lane line, or on a median island at the crosswalk. • Signs can be placed up to 50 feet away (Van Houten and Hochmuth 2017). • The signs cannot be post mounted on another traffic control sign. Systemic Safety Potential Well suited as a spot treatment and has potential as a systemic safety treatment along short sections of corridors with multiple uncontrolled crossings and speed limits of less than 35 mph. Estimated Cost       The cost of an in-street pedestrian crossing sign varies, but is likely $100 to $300 per sign, depending on vendor and slight design variations. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Occasional slight delay Bicyclists • May increase safety of bicyclists crossing parallel to the treatment • May reduce delay for bicyclists crossing but increase delay for bicyclists on the roadway Pedestrians • May increase safety (Zegeer et al. 2017) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • Occasional slight delay Alternative Treatments • Gateway treatment—appropriate at unsignalized crossings along three- or four-lane roadways. • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate at crossings of multilane roadways with higher speeds and medium-to-high vehicle volumes. • Active warning beacons—appropriate at crossings with low vehicle speeds and/or low vehicle volumes. Additional Information • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 147 Leading bicycle intervals (LBIs) provide bicyclists a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LBIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give bicyclists an advanced green signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are allowed to proceed through the intersection. This extra time provides through-bicyclists with an opportunity to establish their presence in, or to clear an intersection before motorists start turning. This head start increases the percentage of motorists who yield the right-of- way to bicyclists and can minimize conflicts between bicyclists crossing a roadway and turning motorists. If this treatment is used with a bicycle signal, an agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA. LBIs can be provided automatically with each phase or provided only when actuated (actively or passively). Active detection requires bicyclists to use a button. Buttons should be placed in such a way that bicyclists do not have to leave the roadway to active the signal. Passive bicycle detection is the preferred option (see passive bicycle signal detection). CMF/Rating A CMF rating has not yet been determined; initial research indicates this treatment is promising (Kading 2016). Leading Bicycle Interval Figure 16. Leading bicycle interval (image source: Peter Koonce). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Intersections with high bicycle volumes and high turn- ing-vehicle volumes. • Locations where a highly used bicycle route (including shared-use path) must cross a major, signalized inter- section to connect users to the rest of the route. • Intersections with contraflow bike lanes or separated bike lanes. • At intersections where a bicycle facility transitions from a cycle track to a bicycle lane. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESLEADING BICYCLE INTERVAL 148 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle Signal sign (MUTCD R10-10) if bicycle signal is present, otherwise, direct bicyclists to follow pedestri- an signal (MUTCD R9-5). • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). May be installed with the following treatments: • Turning vehicles yield to bicyclists sign (MUTCD R10- 15). • Passive bicycle signal detection. • Lighting. • Colored pavement markings through the intersection. Considerations • Bicycle signals should be clearly visible to approaching bicyclists. • Consider the movement of bicyclists when selecting minimum green times and clearance intervals due to slower speeds and start-up times. • Intersection crossing markings should be considered where the bicycle travel path through the intersection is unusual. • Visual variations between vehicular signal heads and bicycle signal heads should be considered (e.g., size, backplate color). • The signal should be installed with actuation and pas- sive and/or active detection for bicyclists. • Consider supplemental, near-side signals with smaller lenses and lower mounting height to provide additional clarity for bicyclists. Systemic Safety Potential The LBI is better suited as a spot treatment and on specific corridors where turning motorists may conflict with high bicycle through-traffic. Estimated Cost       Bicycle signals cost approximately $5,000 and increase with the number of signal heads and type of bicycle detection used. Loop detection costs approximately $6,500 and the cost of a button for active detection is approximately $3,000. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • May reduce delay Pedestrians • May increase safety similar to a leading pedestrian interval (Fayish and Gross 2010) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • May increase delay Alternative Treatments • Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)—appropriate when a bicycle signal is not necessary due to low volumes of bicyclists but bicyclists would benefit from traveling through the intersection before parallel vehicle traffic and a LBI is not an option. If the LPI is used, bicyclists should be directed to use the pedestrian signal and the timing should be set with the needs and speeds of bicyclists in mind (NACTO 2013). • Protected left-turn signal phase for motorists— appropriate if vehicle–bicycle conflicts are associated with “motorist left turn–opposite direction” crashes and conflicts with crossing pedestrians are mitigated. • Bicycle signal—appropriate when there are high volumes of bicyclists and turning vehicles and/or when bicyclists must navigate a complex intersection. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 149 Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) provide pedestrians a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LPIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give pedestrians the WALK signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are allowed to proceed through the intersection. This extra time provides pedestrians with an opportunity to establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists start turning and provides additional crossing time for those who need it. This head start increases the percentage of motorists who yield the right-of-way to pedestrians and can minimize conflicts between pedestrians crossing a roadway and turning vehicles. LPIs can be provided automatically with each phase or provided only when actuated (actively or passively). CMF/Rating 0.41 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Fayish and Gross 2010). A leading pedestrian interval is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Leading Pedestrian Interval Figure 17. Leading pedestrian interval (image source: FHWA). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections. • Medium to high turning-vehicle volumes and pedestri- an volumes. Special Circumstances • Locations with particularly high elderly populations, high crash histories, or at school crosswalks (Thomas et al. 2016). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESLEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL 150 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Lighting. • Curb ramps. • Accessible pedestrian signals. • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). • Pedestrian detection—either active (button) or passive detection. May be installed with the following treatments: • Turning Vehicles Yield to Pedestrians sign (MUTCD R10-15). Considerations • This treatment may be beneficial at locations with low pedestrian demand where signals are semi-actuated or fully actuated and where short minimum green times result in motorists expecting a limited amount of time to enter a main road, resulting in conflicts with pedes- trians when they are present. • If an intersection has particularly high pedestrian traf- fic, consider lengthening the leading pedestrian interval or adding an exclusive pedestrian phase instead of a leading pedestrian interval. • If an intersection has such high pedestrian volumes that motorists are unable to turn across the crosswalk, the green interval for the parallel concurrent vehicle traffic can be set to extend beyond the pedestrian interval to provide turning drivers with sufficient green time to make their turns. • The LPI should be accompanied by an audible noise to inform visually-impaired pedestrians that it is safe to cross. • LPIs may be less effective when used at intersections without right turn on red light restrictions. • Where it is desired to accommodate bicyclists, see Leading Bicyclist Interval. Systemic Safety Potential Potential for systemic use in areas where there are existing pedestrian signals and high volumes of pedestrians and turning vehicles. Estimated Cost       The cost to alter the timing of a pedestrian signal with an existing countdown timer is very little, since no additional equipment is needed. The average cost of a countdown timer is $740, and a signal head is $550 (Bushell et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with other road users (Fayish and Gross 2010) • May increase delay Bicyclists • May improve overall intersection safety • May enhance bicyclist safety if bicyclists are directed to use LPI with pedestrians, otherwise may increase delay Pedestrians • May increase safety (Fayish and Gross 2010) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • May increase intersection safety • May increase delay Alternative Treatments • Exclusive pedestrian phase—appropriate for areas with very high pedestrian and turning-vehicle volumes. • Right-turn-on-red restriction—may be appropriate in areas that do not warrant an exclusive pedestrian phase and that lack funding for a LPI. Additional Information • Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: Signals and Signs • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Counter­ measure Selection System

COUNTERMEASURES 151 Illumination at crosswalks and along the roadway can help increase visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists, particularly at approaches to crossings. Studies show that increasing or adding lighting to crosswalks, road segments, and intersections improves pedestrian and bicyclist safety by reducing crashes, increasing yielding and compliance with traffic control devices, and improving visibility. CMF/Rating 0.73 for injury crashes (Harkey et al. 2008). Lighting Figure 18. Lighting at trail crossing (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Controlled and uncontrolled intersections. Special Circumstances • At and near intersections in commercial or retail areas. • Near schools, parks, and recreation centers. Complementary Countermeasures • Lighting should be considered in conjunction with all other crossing treatments. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESLIGHTING 152 Considerations • Install lighting on both sides of arterial streets and streets in commercial districts. • Use uniform lighting levels. • Lighting can be used to illuminate crosswalks, intersec- tions, and approaches to intersections. • Due to disproportionate risk in darkness, nighttime pe- destrian crossing areas may need to be supplemented with brighter or additional lighting. • FHWA recommends luminaires be placed prior to the crosswalk in the direction of travel in order to provide adequate vertical illumination • The American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting (ANSI/IESNA RP-8) recommends that lighting at intersections should equal the sum of the light levels for each feeder road. A level of 30 lux is considered a conservative estimate for the desired lighting at an intersection with crosswalks, greater than the 20 lux recommended for stand-alone crosswalks and high-traffic pedestrian environments. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement at all uncontrolled and controlled crossings. Estimated Cost       Lighting costs will vary by the type and amount of lighting installed. The average cost of a streetlight is approximately $5,000. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with other road users (Harkey et al. 2008) Bicyclists • May improve safety (Reynolds et al. 2009) Pedestrians • May improve safety (Harkey et al. 2008) Large Trucks • May improve safety Alternative Treatments • Not applicable. Additional Information • Lighting Handbook • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 153 Mini-traffic circles are a traffic-calming device that can take the place of, or supplement, an all-way stop-controlled intersection. They may also be installed at intersections with no control or with all-way or 2-way stop or yield control. Mini-circles are raised circular islands constructed in the center of residential street intersections which require motorists to slow down to maneuver around them. They are typically designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the right of the circles except for trucks or other larger vehicles. Due to the low-volume nature of the intersections where these are installed, mini-circles may be designed to allow larger vehicles to turn left in front of the circle to allow the circle to remain larger in size to provide the desired traffic calming benefits. Mini-circles are commonly landscaped, most often at locations where the neighborhood has agreed to maintain the plants. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been developed; however, existing studies indicate that mini-traffic circles can reduce vehicle speeds (Ewing 1999) and crashes (Thomas et al. 2015), improving safety for all road users. Mini-Traffic Circles Figure 19. Neighborhood traffic circle (left image source: NACTO; right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Roadways with 30-mph or lower posted speeds. • Residential streets. • Neighborhood bikeways. • Stop-controlled intersections with high delay. • Intersections with one lane in each direction. Complementary Countermeasures May be installed with the following treatments: • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Additional traffic-calming treatments, such as chicanes. • Parking restrictions/daylighting (appropriate to im- prove emergency-response vehicle access). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESMINI-TRAFFIC CIRCLES 154 Considerations • Do not make generous allowances for motor vehicles by increasing the turning radii—this compromises pedestrian and bicyclist safety. • Larger vehicles that need access to streets (e.g., school buses and fire engines) may need to make left- hand turns in front of the circle. • Use yield, not stop controls. • Mini-circle landscaping should not impede the sight distance. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is best suited as a spot treatment. Estimated Cost       The cost is of a mini-traffic circle varies but it likely between $5,000 and $15,000. The cost will vary depending on whether the mini-circle is landscaped and/ or on an asphalt or concrete street. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety (Ewing 1999) Bicyclists • May increase safety (Ewing 1999) Pedestrians • May increase safety (Ewing 1999) Large Trucks • May increase safety (Ewing 1999) Alternative Treatments • Other traffic-calming treatments—appropriate at approaches to intersections where the intent is to lower traffic speeds. Additional Information • Mini­Roundabouts: Technical Summary

COUNTERMEASURES 155 Mixing zones are locations within intersections where bicyclists approach an intersection in a bicycle lane or separated bicycle lane that terminates in a shared motor vehicle turn lane. The shared lane requires turning motorists to enter or cross the bicyclist’s travel path, mixing bicycles with motor vehicles. A key feature of a mixing zone is the provision of a constrained merging location where motorists merge across the bicycle lane. Mixing zones are often used in situations where right-of-way is limited and it is infeasible or cost-prohibitive to build a protected intersection or maintain a continuous bicycle lane. Mixing zones should encourage motorists to yield to bicyclists, reduce motor vehicle speed within the shared turn lane, and reduce the risk of hook crashes (NACTO 2012; Hunter et al. 2000; Monsere et al. 2015). Mixing zones may be located on the left side of one-way streets where bicycle lanes are on the left side of the road. CMF/Rating A CMF rating has not been developed; however, existing research indicates that mixing zone treatments are associated with an increase in motorist yielding, improvements in turning movements, and a reduction in vehicle–bicycle conflicts (Rothenberg et al. 2016). Mixing Zone Treatments Figure 20. Mixing zone treatments (left image source: NACTO, right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections. • Roadways with constrained right-of-way. • Along bike routes or intersections with medium to high volumes of bicyclists. • Roadways that can drop on-street parking near the intersection (FHWA 2015). • Intersections with high volumes of turning vehicles and insufficient space for a bike lane. • Along bike routes where there is a dedicated turn lane on the side of the street with the cycle track, but a bike signal is not appropriate (NACTO 2012). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESMIXING ZONE TREATMENTS 156 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bike lanes. • Separated bike lanes. May be installed with the following treatments: • Colored pavement markings. • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). • Yield markings. • Begin Right Turn Lane Yield to Bikes sign (MUTCD R4-4). • Flexible posts. Highly reflective flexible post delinea- tors installed in the pavement; also known as safe-hit delineators or flex stakes. Considerations • Mixing zone treatments should include yield entry markings, a motor vehicle entry area defined with flexi- ble delineators or other physical devices, and a shared motor vehicle turn lane with shared lane markings (Monsere et al. 2015). • Mixing zones may be most effective at intersections with 50 to 150 turning vehicles in the peak hour (FHWA 2015). • This treatment may not be appropriate at intersections with very high peak automobile right-turn demand (NACTO 2012). Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement in areas where right- or left-turn lanes are common and bicycle markings are needed to clarify bicyclist positioning and encourage motorist yielding. May also work as a spot treatment. Estimated Cost       The cost of a mixing zone treatment will vary depending on the combination of treatments installed. A sharrow will likely cost $250, regulatory signs may cost $200, and flexible posts can cost up to $200. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May improve safety (Rothenberg et al. 2016) Bicyclists • May improve safety (Rothenberg et al. 2016) Pedestrians • No impacts expected Large Trucks • No impacts expected Alternative Treatments • Protected intersections. • Roundabouts. • Bicycle lanes with protected signal phases. Additional Information • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 157 In most communities, turning right on red is a default condition of existing laws. To restrict it, a sign most be posted at the signalized intersection for each approach where the restriction is desired. The purpose of this treatment is to eliminate conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians and/or bicyclists during a concurrent walk (or bike signal) phase. Motorists are advised of this restriction with the posting of “No Turn on Red” signs (MUTCD R10-11 series), which may be static or dynamic. Dynamic signs can be used to restrict turns during certain times of day or during certain signal phases; for example, vehicle right turns may be restricted during a bike signal phase. Preliminary research indicates that dynamic signs may be more effective than static ones at inducing motorists to stop before turning right on red (Thomas et al. 2016). CMF/Rating 0.97 for all crashes (Harkey et al. 2008). This treatment is not well studied; it is possible that it would result in safety improvements for pedestrians and bicyclists. No Turn on Red Signs Figure 21. Time-based No Turn on Red sign (left; image source: BIKESAFE) and electric No Turn on Red sign with bike signal (right; image source: BIKESAFE). Applicable Crash Types *Only applicable if there is a separate pedestrian phase. **Only applicable if there is a separate bike phase or leading bicycle interval. Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections. • High volumes of right-turning vehicles and high vol- umes of bicyclists and/or pedestrians. Special Circumstances • Intersections with bike boxes. • School crossings. • Intersections with exclusive pedestrian or bicycle phases. • Intersections with two-way separated bike lanes. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction** Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path* Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESNO TURN ON RED SIGNS 158 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed if one or more of the following treatments are used: • Leading pedestrian interval. • Leading bicycle interval. • Protected bike signal phase. • Barnes Dance/exclusive pedestrian phase. May be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle signal. • Lighting. Considerations • In some cases, part-time right-turn-on-red restrictions during the busiest times of the day may be sufficient to address existing problems. • Signs should be clearly visible to right-turning motor- ists stopped in the curb lane at the crosswalk. • A common concern that comes up when restricting right turns on red is that this can lead to higher right- turn-on-green conflicts when there are concurrent signals. The use of a leading pedestrian interval (or leading bicycle interval) can usually address this issue. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement in areas with frequent motorist right-turn conflicts with bicyclists and/ or pedestrians; if used systemically, pair with a solution to address higher right-turn on green needs if warranted. Estimated Cost       The cost of a sign is approximately $200. Electronic signs are approximately $3,000 to install. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with other road users (Harkey et al. 2008) • May increase delay Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May increase safety Large Trucks • May increase delay Alternative Treatments • Exclusive pedestrian/bicyclist phase—appropriate when a no-turn-on-red restriction does not reduce conflicts, even when used in combination with leading pedestrian/bicycle intervals, or when pedestrian or bicyclist volumes are high enough to warrant exclusive phasing. • Protected intersection—appropriate when space and funding are available for construction and bicycle and pedestrian volumes are high enough to justify it.

COUNTERMEASURES 159 When vehicles are parked too close to pedestrian and bicycle crossings, they can limit the sightlines between oncoming motorists and pedestrians or bicyclists needing to cross the street which can increase crash risk. Removing parking space(s) on an intersection approach can improve the visibility between pedestrians and bicyclists with approaching motorists. Generally, vehicles should not be parked within at least 20 to 25 feet of an intersection to provide a minimum line of sight. Parking restrictions near intersections can be particularly important in areas where there are high concentrations of children or people in wheelchairs, where parked motorists may block wheelchair ramps, or where motorists are traveling faster and have less time to react to people trying to cross the street. To prevent motorists from parking or stopping in restricted areas, it may also be necessary to provide physical roadway measures, such as curb extensions or vertical delineators to prevent the behavior. CMF/Rating 0.70 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Gan et al. 2005). Parking Restrictions at Crossing Locations/Daylighting Figure 22. Parking restriction with pavement markings (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Approaches to intersections where parked vehicles block sightlines. • Approaches to intersections with high volumes of pedestrians. • Intersections with high frequencies of pedestrian–vehi- cle conflicts. Special Circumstances • Near schools and senior centers. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPARKING RESTRICTIONS AT CROSSING LOCATIONS/DAYLIGHTING 160 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • No Parking sign (MUTCD R7 series). • Curb ramps. May be installed with the following treatments: • Curb extensions. • Pedestrian warning sign (MUTCD W11-2). • Physical barriers. • Planters (where operating speeds < 35 mph). • Painted curb. • Lighting. Considerations • In some cases, it may be necessary to provide physical roadway barriers to prevent motorists from parking near crosswalks, such as temporary curbing, planters, flexible delineators, or curb extensions. • Communicate with community stakeholders, including nearby property owners and business who might be impacted by parking space removal. • Consider repurposing parking spaces for green infra- structure, bicycle parking, or pedestrian furniture. • Pavement markings and signing can be used to delin- eate the restricted area; however, physical restrictions, such as curb extensions or vertical delineators, can be more effective (ITE 2015). • Parking restrictions without physical barriers may require enforcement. • If stop or yield lines are used at a crosswalk on an uncontrolled multilane approach, parking should be prohibited in the area between the stop or yield line and the crosswalk (ITE 2015). • Parking restrictions can either be implemented on a permanent basis or during certain times of day. • Cities may choose to tailor parking restrictions to the speed of the road. For example, the FHWA recom- mends extending parking restrictions 20 feet from the crosswalk on 20- to 30-mph roads; 50 feet from the crosswalk on 35- to 45-mph roads; and 100 feet from the crosswalk on roads with posted speeds above 45 mph (FHWA n.d.). Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement within 20 to 25 feet of all intersections with high pedestrian crossing volumes and/or high potential for pedestrian–vehicle conflicts. Estimated Cost       Costs can be minimal if only removing the striping of a parking space and/or adding paint. Delineator costs vary, but are likely between $30 and $100 per unit. Parking restriction signs cost approximately $200. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce crashes by increasing visibility of all other road users (Elvik and Vaa 2004) Bicyclists • May increase safety of bicyclists by increasing visibility of bicyclists crossing unsignalized intersections and by reducing risk of dooring in situations where bike lanes were previously directly adjacent to parked vehicles Pedestrians • May increase safety (Gan et al. 2005) Large Trucks • May reduce crashes by increasing visibility of all other road users Alternative Treatments • Curb extensions—appropriate when funding is avail- able and in areas where parking restrictions are not politically feasible. Additional Information • Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 161 At signalized intersections that require users to be detected to actuate a signal, detection should be designed to accommodate bicyclists. Properly designed detection can deter unsafe behaviors, such as disregarding red signal indications, by reducing delay at signalized intersections. Bicycle signal detection also increases the convenience of bicycling. Passive detection (i.e., when the signal system automatically detects the presence of the user) is considered best practice where feasible. Loop detectors, commonly used for motor vehicle detection, can also be used to detect bicyclists. Other passive detection devices include video and microwave detection. Bicycle detection devices can be used to call a phase or to prolong the phase to allow a bicyclist to clear an intersection. This is particularly important at locations where the minimum green has been established to serve motorists and may not be long enough to serve bicyclists. Pavement markings and/or signs should be used to notify bicyclists of the proper bicycle detection location. Combining passive bicycle detection with detection confirmation lights or active detection (buttons) may improve compliance by assuring bicyclists that they have been detected. As passive bicycle signal detection becomes more common, expected, and reliable, this may no longer be needed. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial use of this treatment indicate that it is promising. Passive Bicycle Signal Detection Figure 23. Bicyclist waiting at passive signal detection pavement marking (left) and passive bicycle detection pavement marking (right) (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections that require users to be detect- ed to actuate a signal for one or more movement. • Intersections with bicycle signals and/or bicycle-specific phasing. • Bike lanes approaching intersections with bicycle signals. • Left-turn lanes with left-turn signals where bicyclists also turn left (NACTO 2012). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPASSIVE BICYCLE SIGNAL DETECTION 162 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bicycle signal sign (MUTCD R10-10) if bicycle signal is being used. • Passive bicycle detection sign (MUTCD R10-22). • Bicycle detector pavement marking. May be installed with the following treatments: • Lighting. • Detection confirmation light. • Active bicycle detection (button). Considerations • Detection should be located in the most conspicuous and convenient location. • Supplement detection with appropriate signs and pave- ment markings to inform bicyclists where to wait. • It may be appropriate to install advanced bicycle detec- tion on the approach to the intersection to extend the phase, or to prompt the phase and allow for continu- ous bicycle through movements, • Signal timing should be adjusted to account for the unique operating characteristics of bicycles. • It is important that the design of loop detectors con- sider the amount of metal in typical bicycles. Certain types of loop configurations are better at detecting bicyclists than others and settings for loop detectors should be adjusted to properly detect bicycles. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement, especially along primary bicycle routes and complicated intersection crossings. Estimated Cost       Bicycle loop detection costs vary, but are likely between $1,000 and $7,000 (Weigand et al. 2013; Sundstrom et al. 2014). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May improve safety from reduced bicyclist signal noncompliance Bicyclists • May improve safety from reduced bicyclist signal noncompliance Pedestrians • May improve safety from reduced bicyclist signal noncompliance Large Trucks • May improve safety from reduced bicyclist signal noncompliance Alternative Treatments • Active detection—appropriate when passive detection is not feasible due to site conditions or costs. Additional Information • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 163 Pedestrian signals and countdown signals provide positive guidance to pedestrians regarding the permitted signal interval to cross a street and prohibit pedestrian crossings when conflicting traffic may impact pedestrian safety. Ideally, every signalized intersection should have a pedestrian signal head. Countdown signals are indications designed to begin counting down at the beginning of the clearance interval (flashing “WALK”/“DON’T WALK”) and can be on fixed-time, push-button operation, or use passive pedestrian detection. They indicate to the pedestrian how much time is left in the crossing phase. The MUTCD requires countdown pedestrian indications for all newly installed traffic signals where pedestrian signals are installed. CMF/Rating 0.30- (Van Houten et al. 2012). 0.75 for vehicle pedestrian crashes (Markowitz et al. 2006); some research has shown no or a slightly negative effect (Camden et al. 2012). Pedestrian Countdown Signals Figure 24. Pedestrian countdown signals (left image source: PEDSAFE; right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Any time a new pedestrian signal is installed. • Crossings with exclusive pedestrian phases. • Signalized intersections spanning wide streets. • Crossings with medium-to-high volumes of pedestrians. Special Circumstances • At or near school crossings. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. May be installed with the following treatments: • Lighting. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS 164 Considerations • Pedestrian signals should be clearly visible to pedes- trians at all times when in the crosswalk or waiting on the far side of the street. • Quick response to the button or feedback to the pedestrian registering the signal’s actuation should be programmed into the system; excessive delay encour- ages noncompliance. • Where possible, provide a walk interval for every cycle. • Provide supplemental nonvisual guidance for pedestri- ans with sensory restrictions. • At signals where pedestrians must activate the signal using a button, push-buttons should be well designed and within reach and operable from a flat surface for pedestrians in wheelchairs or with visual disabilities. Buttons should be conveniently located in the area where pedestrians wait to cross and should clearly indicate which pedestrian signals will be activated. Quick response to the button or an indication to the pedestrian registering the signal’s actuation should be programmed into the system. Consider using passive pedestrian detection for signal activation as pedestri- ans do not always push the button. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement at all intersections with pedestrian signals, or to supplement signalized intersections in an area or along a corridor with expected pedestrian crossing activity. Estimated Cost       Pedestrian countdown timer costs vary depending on the types of features installed, the average cost of a countdown timer module is $750. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces crashes with other road users (Van Houten et al. 2012) Bicyclists • May improve safety via increased awareness of signal phase timing Pedestrians • May improve safety (Markowitz et al. 2006) Large Trucks • No impacts expected Alternative Treatments • Not applicable.

COUNTERMEASURES 165 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs), also called HAWKs, are signals installed at unsignalized major street crossing locations to help pedestrians cross the street safely. PHBs may be used in locations where side-street volumes do not warrant a conventional traffic signal, or in situations where there are concerns that a conventional signal may encourage additional motor vehicle traffic on the minor street. PHBs may be effective at reducing multiple threat crashes. PHBs typically include the following elements: • Overhead beacons with three sections (circular yellow signal indication centered below two horizontally aligned circular red signals) facing both directions on the major street. • Overhead signs labeled “CROSSWALK STOP ON RED” to indicate that the location is associated with a pedestrian crosswalk. • A marked crosswalk on the major street. • Countdown pedestrian signal heads to control pedestrian crossings at the crosswalk. CMF/Rating 0.70 for total crashes (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010). 0.31-0.45 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al. 2017). A pedestrian hybrid beacon is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Figure 25. Pedestrian hybrid beacons (left image source: NACTO; right image source: Mike Cynecki). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Urban or suburban multilane roadways. • Higher speed roads (particularly at or above 35 mph). • Locations with high volumes of pedestrians and vehicles (AADT > 9,000); if higher volumes, 30 mph locations may be appropriate (Blackburn et al. 2017). Special Circumstances • Uncontrolled locations with safety concerns or high frequency of pedestrian crashes. • Long pedestrian delay due to few available gaps in traffic. • Near schools, parks, and senior centers. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACON 166 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Crosswalk Stop on Red sign (MUTCD R10-23). • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian push button. • Pedestrian countdown signals. May be installed with the following treatments: • Curb extensions. • Pedestrian warning sign (MUTCD W11-2). • Raised median refuge islands. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series). • Lighting. Considerations • PHBs may be appropriate where traffic signals are unwarranted. • PHBs may be used at corners and midblock locations. • The preferred design is to place the beacon over the crosswalk, rather than on the side of the road. • PHBs should be placed outside of the functional area of signalized intersections and outside of turn lanes. • Some cities use PHBs along heavily used bicycle routes to help bicyclists cross major streets. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement along midblock and uncontrolled crossings on multilane roadways with moderate- to high-traffic volumes, speed limits at or greater than 30 mph, and longer intervals between crossings (Blackburn et al. 2017). Estimated Cost       The average cost of a PHB is approximately $60,000, but prices may range from $75,000 to over $150,000 (Buschell et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce crashes involving all users (Fitzpatrick et al. 2010) • Occasional minor delay • May increase rear-end crashes Bicyclists • May improve safety if bicyclists are directed to use the PHB • May reduce delay Pedestrians • May improve safety (Zegeer et al. 2017) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • May reduce crashes involving all users • Occasional minor delay Alternative Treatments • Active warning beacons—appropriate on low-speed and/or low-vehicle-volume roads. Additional Information • NCHRP Report 562 & TCRP Report 112: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Guide—Recommendations and Case Study • Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian Crossing Treatment • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 167 Protected intersections maintain a physical separation between motorists and bicyclists up to the intersection. They are designed to slow turning motorist speeds to induce yielding and to improve the sight line between motorists and bicyclists to reduce conflicts between turning motorists and through moving bicyclists. Protected intersections include a corner protection island, a forward queuing area, and recessed bicycle and pedestrian crossings. The recessed crossing for bicyclists provides space for motorists to turn, and gives motorists a greater ability to see, react to, and yield to approaching bicyclists, thereby mitigating the potential for conflicts. Protected intersections should be a default treatment for separated bike lanes or shared-use paths. At signalized intersections, signal timing may provide leading or protected phasing to further reduce potential conflicts. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates this treatment is promising (more bicyclists making two- stage lefts and lower motorist right-turn speed), but there are also some indications that they may be less safe (lower bicyclists and pedestrian signal compliance and lower percent of left-turning vehicles yielding to bicyclists) (NCHRP Project 15-63 report). Protected Intersections Figure 26. Protected intersections (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Urban areas. • Signalized intersections with sufficient space to accommodate the design. • High volumes of bicyclists and motorists, or medium to high volumes of bicyclists, motorists, and pedestrians. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPROTECTED INTERSECTIONS 168 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • Bike lanes. • Separated bike lanes. May be installed with the following treatments: • LPI. • LBI. • Bicycle signals. • Passive bicycle signal detection. • Parking restrictions/daylighting. • Colored pavement markings. • Lighting. • Raised median pedestrian refuge islands. • Pedestrian countdown signals. • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. Considerations • Mountable truck aprons can reduce turning speeds for passenger vehicles while accommodating the off-tracking of larger vehicles where a larger corner radius is necessary. • Use clear markings and signs to direct users. • Protected intersections may require more space along the intersection approach than standard intersections; intersection right-of-way and roadside dimensions are typically more important factors than total roadway width (Gilpin et al. 2015). Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is better suited as a spot treatment at this time. Estimated Cost       The cost to install a protected intersection will vary depending on the amount and type of treatments installed. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety • May reduce turning speed Bicyclists • May increase safety Pedestrians • May increase safety Large Trucks • May increase safety • May reduce turning speed Alternative Treatments • Advance stop/yield lines and raised median islands with pedestrian refuge areas—appropriate when fund- ing and space are limited. • Protected phasing—appropriate when funding and space are limited. Physical protection of pedestrians and/or bicyclists is not important. Intersection efficiency and safety for all road users would be improved with exclusive phasing. Additional Information • Lessons Learned: Evolution of the Protected Intersection • MassDOT Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 169 Protected phases at intersections provide a way to separate vehicular traffic from pedestrian and/or bicyclist movements, particularly for left-turns when concurrent phasing would result in a conflict with crossing pedestrians and left-turning vehicles and right-turns when concurrent phasing would result in a conflict with through bicyclists and right-turning vehicles. CMF/Rating 0.64 for exclusive pedestrian phase for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (ITE 2004). Protected Phases Figure 27. Bike signal with protected phase (left; image source: Toole Design Group) and protected left turn (right; image source: PEDSAFE). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Urban areas, particularly in downtown locations. • Intersections with high volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists and turning vehicles. • Intersections with low to medium vehicle volumes. Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). May be installed with the following treatments: • All-walk phase. • Left-turn phasing. • Curb ramps. • Protected intersections. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESPROTECTED PHASES 170 Considerations • Signal timing decisions should consider the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, trucks, buses, and other motor vehicles. • Signal timing decisions should consider the volume of right- and left-turning motorists. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement. Estimated Cost       If adjusting signal phasing at an existing signal the cost is very low, including only a few hours of staff time. The installation of signals varies widely in cost, from $8,000 to $150,000 depending on context and complexity. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May reduce turning-vehicle crashes • May increase delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • May increase delay Pedestrians • May increase safety • May increase delay Large Trucks • May reduce turning-vehicle crashes • May increase delay Alternative Treatments In areas where protected phasing is not feasible, the following treatments may be appropriate: • Restricted left or right-turn. • Split phasing (appropriate for higher-volume locations). • LPI. • LBI. Additional Information • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermea­ sure Selection System • FHWA Traffic Signal Timing Manual, Chapter 4

COUNTERMEASURES 171 CMF/Rating 0.54 for fatal/injury crashes (Bahar et al. 2007). 0.49 for fatal/injury crashes on entrances or exits to streets and driveways (Schepers et al. 2011). Raised Crossings Figure 28. Raised crossing over slip lane; raised crossing mid-block (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • School zones. • Locations where motorists are failing to yield at pedes- trian crossings. • Slip lanes. • Roundabout crossings. • Shared-use path crossings. Raised crossings are a vertical traffic control measure that can reduce vehicle speeds, reduce the need for curb ramps (though truncated domes should still be included), and improve pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety by improving motorists yielding. Raised crossings are designed with ramps on each vehicle approach to elevate the entire crosswalk (raised crossing) or intersection (raised intersections) to the level of the sidewalk, slowing drivers and increasing visibility between pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. Research finds raised crossings are an effective treatment to improve safety for motorists approaching a crossing straight on (Thomas et al. 2016) or for motorists turning onto or off a side-street or driveway over a crossing (Schepers et al. 2011). Raised crossings and speed tables include ramps on each vehicle approach, which elevate the entire crosswalk (raised crossing) or intersection (speed table) to the level of the sidewalk, slowing drivers and increasing visibility between pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESRAISED CROSSINGS 172 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). May be installed with the following treatments: • Curb extensions. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • In-road signs. • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. • Lighting. Considerations • Raised crossings and speed tables may require additional design considerations and consultation on truck routes, bus routes, emergency routes, and arterial streets (Blackburn et al. 2017). • Roadway operating speeds should be below 35 mph. • Do not use for crossings on steep curves or roadways with steep grades where visibility is limited. • MUTCD Section 3B.25 guidance for Speed Hump Markings may be applied at raised crosswalks. • Consider storm water drainage and snowplowing in the design of the raised crosswalk (Blackburn et al. 2017). • If context-sensitive solutions are desired, crosswalks can be built with a variety of materials, including as- phalt, concrete, stamped concrete, or brick pavers. • Some cities use raised crossings for bicyclists along shared-use paths. • Noise may increase, particularly if trucks regularly use the route. • Markings and signs should promote nighttime visibility of raised devices for bicyclists and motorists. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is best suited as a spot treatment. Estimated Cost       The cost for a raised crossing varies, but it is likely between $2,000 and $20,000, depending on site conditions and materials used. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety • May reduce speeds • May slightly increase delay Bicyclists • May increase safety (Schepers et al. 2011) • May reduce delay by increasing driver yielding Pedestrians • May increase safety (Bahar et al. 2007) • Provides flatter surface for crossing, better for the disabled • May reduce delay by increasing driver yielding Large Trucks • May increase safety • May be difficult to cross Alternative Treatments • High-visibility crosswalk markings—appropriate if volumes and speeds do not warrant more robust treatments. • Active warning beacon—appropriate on low-speed, low-volume roads if crossing requires users to travel across more than one lane and no other control is present. • Rectangular rapid flash beacons—appropriate where speeds and volumes are low to moderate, with prefer- ence given to two-lane roads. • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate on roadways with speeds of at least 35 mph and medium-to-high vehicle volumes, if crossing requires uses to travel across more than two lanes and no other control is present. Additional Information • Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 173 Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Roadways with low-to-medium vehicle volumes. • Roadways with posted speeds less than 40 mph. Rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) are placed on both sides of an uncontrolled crosswalk, below a pedestrian crossing sign, and above an arrow pointing at the crosswalk. The beacons differ from standard flashing beacons by using a rapid flash frequency (approximately 190 times per minute), brighter light intensity, and ability to aim the LED lighting. RRFBs can be passively or pedestrian actuated, and feature an irregular, eye-catching flash pattern to call attention to the presence of pedestrians. RRFBs have been shown to significantly increase motorist yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks, with motorist yield rates ranging from 34 percent to over 90 percent. Studies have also demonstrated reduced pedestrian–vehicle conflicts, increased stopping distance, and reductions in pedestrians trapped in roadway (Thomas et al. 2016). These safety benefits likely extend to bicyclists crossing at RRFB locations. CMF/Rating 0.53 for vehicle– pedestrian crashes (Zegeer et al. 2017). Rectangular Rapid Flash Beacon Figure 29. Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (image source: Toole Design Group). ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESRECTANGULAR RAPID FLASH BEACON 174 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian detection, either active (push button) or passive detection. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15 or S1-1). • Stop Here for Pedestrians or Yield Here to Pedestrians signs (MUTCD R1-5 series) on multilane approaches. May be installed with the following treatments: • Raised median refuge islands. • In-road signs. • Lighting. Considerations • RRFBs should not be used in conjunction with YIELD, STOP, or traffic signal control. • RRFBs are good for two-lane streets, but less suited for multilane roadways. • If multiple RRFBs are needed in close proximity, con- sider redesigning the roadway to address systemic safety challenges. • Other treatments may be more appropriate in locations with sight distance constraints. • A high-intensity unit (SAE-1) should be used instead of a less-intense unit. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is better suited as a spot treatment or a systemic treatment in limited areas, such as along neighborhood greenways. The need to broadly apply this treatment suggests that other systemic treatments, such as roadway redesign and/or speed reduction, may be necessary. Estimated Cost       The cost of a RRFB varies, but is likely between $10,000 and $20,000 (FHWA 2009). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • Reduces conflicts with pedestrians (Zegeer et al. 2017) • May reduce rear-end crashes (Monsere et al. 2017) • Occasional slight delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • Some cities use this treatment at major bicycle crossings • May reduce delay Pedestrians • May increase safety (Zegeer et al. 2017) • May reduce delay Large Trucks • May increase safety • Occasional slight delay Alternative Treatments • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate if crossing is on a multilane roadway with a posted speed of at least 35 mph and medium-to-high vehicle volumes. • Flashing beacon. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

COUNTERMEASURES 175 The number of lanes on a roadway determines how far pedestrians must cross at an intersection and how many conflict points might exist for turning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians. Efforts have been made to reduce the number and width of lanes through “road diets” that not only reduce the number of lanes but provide space to implement additional pedestrian and bicyclist safety treatments such as adding bike lanes and median crossing islands and reducing travel speed. Road diets are often completed to improve access management, increase bicycle and pedestrian access, and enhance roadway safety. The most common road diet configuration involves converting a four-lane road into three lanes, with one travel lane in each direction and a center two-way, left-turn lane, often supplemented with painted or raised center islands. CMF/Rating 0.71 for total crashes (Harkey et al. 2008). Safety benefits may vary depending on the type of treatments implemented. However, studies suggest that road diets are associated with increased pedestrian safety and reduced vehicle speeds (Thomas et al. 2016). A road diet or rechannelization project is recognized by FHWA as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. Road Diet/ Rechannelization Figure 30. Before (left) and after (right) rechannelization at N. 130th Street, Seattle, WA (image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Priority bicycle and pedestrian routes. • Urban and rural areas. • Multilane roads. Complementary Countermeasures May be installed with any other countermeasure applicable to the context, including, but not limited to the following treatments: • Raised median islands with pedestrian refuge areas. • Pedestrian hybrid beacons. • Active warning beacons. • Raised crossings. • Bicycle lanes. • Lighting. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESROAD DIET/ RECHANNELIZATION 176 Considerations Many factors should be considered while determining the feasibility of a lane reduction, including • Traffic volumes and mix. • Left-turn movements. • Crash types and frequency. • Geometric data such as roadway widths, sight dis- tance, and the number of driveways. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment is best suited as a spot treatment. Estimated Cost       The cost of restriping lanes can range from $20,000 to $40,000 per mile, depending on the lane configurations. Traffic signal modifications may also be needed. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety • May reduce capacity • May reduce speeds Bicyclists • May increase safety • May increase access and mobility Pedestrians • May increase safety Large Trucks • May increase safety • May reduce capacity • May reduce speeds Alternative Treatments • Raised median with pedestrian refuge island— appropriate on roadways with high vehicle volumes when road diets are not feasible. • On constrained corridors that are major bicycle or transit routes and where vehicle capacity warrants the existing lane configuration, consider removing on-street parking to provide dedicated bicycle and/or transit facilities. Additional Information • Evaluation of Lane Reduction “Road Diet” Measures on Crashes • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Counter­ measure Selection System • Road Diet Informational Guide • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Un controlled Crossing Locations

COUNTERMEASURES 177 Roundabouts are circular intersections designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to circulate around a central island. Roundabouts are typically installed in place of traffic signals to reduce vehicular speeds, improve safety at intersections by eliminating angle and higher-speed collisions to allow more efficient traffic operations, and to reduce operation costs associated with signalized intersections. Further detail on potential applications are discussed in NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition (Rodegerdts et al. 2010). NCHRP Research Report 834: Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision Disabilities: A Guidebook, provides vital information on roundabout design for all pedestrians, including those with vision impairment (Schroeder et al. 2017). CMF/Rating A CMF for vehicle–pedestrian crashes based on U.S. data has not been developed due to low incidence of reported pedestrian crashes (Ferguson et al. 2018). Roundabouts reduce motor vehicle speeds, which can create a safer environment for all road users (Rodegerdts et al. 2010, Ariniello 2005). Data from two studies in Belgium suggest that roundabouts are typically not safer for pedestrians than signalized intersections (De Brabander and Vereeck 2003) and that roundabouts may not always improve safety for bicyclists (Daniels et al. 2008). It is unknown as to the extent of applicability of these studies to U.S. road users and intersection design practices that may vary from those studied in Belgium. Roundabout Figure 31. Roundabouts with marked crosswalks and other pedestrian safety enhancements (left image source: PEDSAFE, right image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Intersections where signals are not warranted or are unable to be installed. • Intersections of local, collector, or arterial roadways; freeway interchanges. • Intersections with high left-turning vehicle volumes. • Intersections that are part of a corridor treatment that includes access management and motor vehicle travel lane reductions. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESROUNDABOUT 178 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Warning sign (MUTCD W11-1, W11-2, W11-15, or S1-1). • Curb ramps. • Lighting. May be installed with the following treatments: • Pedestrian-activated signals or beacons at crosswalks. • Advance stop/yield lines on multilane approaches. • Raised crossings. Considerations • When determining whether to install a roundabout, general considerations include pedestrian and bicycle volumes, effects on pedestrian route directness, the design vehicle, the number of travel lanes, and avail- able rights-of-way. • Where there are high pedestrian volumes, signal con- trols and larger crosswalk widths should be consid- ered. • Slowing the exit and entry points of the roundabout through horizontal deflection, vertical deflection, or both is important for maintaining safety for all users. Generally, entry speeds on each leg of the intersection should be designed for about 15 to 18 mph. • Intersections with more than four legs may be good candidates for conversion to roundabouts. An engi- neering study should be conducted in order to deter- mine where a roundabout would be most appropriate, or if a traditional intersection would be more suitable for the location. • In general, multilane roundabouts should have addi- tional pedestrian and bicycle crossing treatments to address safety concerns with respect to multiple-threat crashes for pedestrians and bicyclists and accessibility concerns for people with vision disabilities. • Bicycle treatments around the perimeter of the round- about should be designed to mitigate bicyclist risk. Systemic Safety Potential This treatment can be used as a spot treatment or as part of an overall corridor management program where roundabouts are combined with vehicle travel lane reductions, access management, and improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Estimated Cost       The cost of a modern roundabout varies widely. Planning-level costs reported by state agencies range from approximately $250,000 to over $2 million (Pochowski et al. 2016), with considerable variation above and below this range. The size, number of lanes, landscaping, site conditions, and whether right-of- way acquisitions are needed all impact the cost of a roundabout. Roundabouts usually have lower ongoing maintenance costs than traffic signals, depending on whether the roundabout is landscaped. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety (Rodegerdts et al. 2010; Qin et al. 2013; Gross et al. 2012) • May impact delay Bicyclists • May decrease safety in some situations (Daniels et al. 2008) Pedestrians • May increase safety if replacing uncontrolled intersection (De Brabander and Vereeck 2003) Large Trucks • May increase safety if designed to accommodate trucks (Qin et al. 2013; Gross et al. 2012) • May impact delay Alternative Treatments • Mini-traffic circles—appropriate on low-speed and low-volume roads, typically along residential streets and neighborhood bikeways. • Traffic signals—appropriate when MUTCD guidelines are met. • Pedestrian hybrid beacons—appropriate in areas with medium-to-high anticipated pedestrian volumes and low driver-yielding rates. Additional Information • Institute of Transportation Engineers • NCHRP Report 672: Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition

COUNTERMEASURES 179 Traffic signal timing can impact pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Undue delays for pedestrians and bicyclists may encourage unsafe crossing behavior and could have an overall negative impact on perceived walkability and bicycling convenience. Studies on minimizing delay often find that safety is improved when pedestrian or bicyclist delay is reduced (Retting and Chapline 2002). CMF/Rating Approximately 0.50 for vehicle–pedestrian crashes (will vary depending on specific signal phasing) (Chen et al. 2012). Signal Timing Figure 32. Signal timing options (left image source: PEDSAFE; right image source: NYCDOT). Applicable Crash Types* *When found to be a problem at signalized intersections; for turning crashes, see Protected Phases. Applicable Contexts • Signalized intersections where pedestrian and/or bicyclist traffic is expected, particularly medium or high volumes. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESSIGNAL TIMING 180 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings (for pedestrian signals). • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian countdown signal (for pedestrian signals). May be installed with the following treatments: • No Turn on Red ((MUTCD R10-11 series) restrictions (if high potential of turning conflicts). • LPI. • Pedestrian detection, either active (push button) or passive detection. • Automated pedestrian detection. • LBI. • Bicycle signal. • Passive bicycle signal detection. • Lighting. Considerations • Signal timing decisions should consider the needs of trucks, buses, and other motor vehicles and bicyclists. • Signal timing operations must account for vehicle volumes, including turning vehicle volumes. • In general, shorter cycle lengths (ideally less than 90 seconds) and longer walk intervals provide better service to pedestrians and encourage better signal compliance. • For optimal pedestrian service, fixed-time signal operation usually works best because it provides an automatic pedestrian phase. • Pedestrians typically receive more frequent crossing opportunities and experience less delay with concur- rent signal phasing than with exclusive signal phasing, which serves vehicle traffic and pedestrian volumes separately. • Split phasing can be a good alternative to concurrent signal phasing. Split phasing splits the vehicular green phase into two parts. First, pedestrians receive a pro- tected WALK phase while vehicles traveling parallel are given a green signal to go straight but not turn. Second, the pedestrian DON’T WALK is activated and vehicles are permitted to turn. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as systemic safety improvement along corridors with high pedestrian or bicycle volume and short or infrequent pedestrian phases. Estimated Cost       After signal installation, adjusting signal timing is a low-cost treatment, typically requiring only a few hours of staff time. The installation of signals varies widely in cost, from $8,000 to $150,000 depending on context and complexity. Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety • May impact delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • May impact delay Pedestrians • May increase safety (Chen et al. 2012) • May impact delay Large Trucks • May increase safety • May impact delay Alternative Treatments • Not applicable. Additional Information • Traffic Signal Timing Manual • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices • PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Counter­ measure Selection System

COUNTERMEASURES 181 Traffic signals create gaps in the traffic flow to allow pedestrians and other users to cross the street at locations where users would otherwise experience long delays or have difficulties crossing the street safely. Warrants in the MUTCD govern the installation of traffic signals, which are based on the number of pedestrians and vehicles crossing the intersection, among other factors. However, judgment must also be used on a case-by-case basis. CMF/Rating The CMF for vehicle–pedestrian crashes at traffic signals varies widely and depends on signal timing and phasing. Installing a traffic signal, alone, without consideration for pedestrian or bicyclist needs, may not significantly improve safety for these users. In general, signals with split phasing, exclusive phasing, longer cycle lengths for pedestrians, or traffic signals installed in conjunction with marked crosswalks and pedestrian countdown signals are associated with improved pedestrian safety (Chen et al. 2012). Traffic Signals Figure 33. Traffic signal with crosswalk and pedestrian countdown signal (left; image source: www.pedbikeimages. com/Dan Burden) and traffic signal with bike signal and no turn on red restriction (right; image source: Toole Design Group). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Intersections that currently or are projected to meet MUTCD signal warrant guidelines. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESTRAFFIC SIGNALS 182 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • High-visibility crosswalk markings. • Curb ramps. • Pedestrian detection, active or passive detection. • Pedestrian countdown signals. May be installed with the following treatments: • Raised median islands with pedestrian refuge areas. • Curb extensions. • Parking restrictions/daylighting. • Bicycle signal. • No Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). • Lighting. Considerations • Signals should allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and an adequate clearance interval based upon a maximum walking speed of 3.5 ft/s; where there is a heavy concentration of senior citizens or children, a lower speed (typically 3.0 ft/s) should be used in determining pedestrian clearance time. • When pedestrian volume is significant throughout the day, fixed-time signals should be used to consistently allow crossing opportunities. • Pedestrian actuation should only be used when pedes- trian crossings are intermittent and should be made accessible to pedestrians of all abilities. • Signal cycles should be kept short (preferably 90 sec- onds maximum) to reduce pedestrian delay. • There is always the potential for latent demand at intersections, even if no sidewalks or crosswalks are present. Pedestrians should always be considered in new and modified signal design projects. Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement at all intersections where signals are warranted or pedestrian demand is anticipated to increase to warrant a signal in the near future. Estimated Cost       Traffic signal installation costs are typically between $200,000 and $500,000, depending on the complexity of the intersection. Annual maintenance costs are approximately $1,000 to $5,000 (ITE 2004). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May increase safety (McGee et al. 2003) • May impact delay Bicyclists • May increase safety • May impact delay Pedestrians • May increase safety (Chen et al. 2012) • May impact delay Large Trucks • May increase safety (McGee et al. 2003) • May impact delay Alternative Treatments • Pedestrian hybrid beacon—appropriate if traffic signal is not warranted and crossing is on a multilane roadway with a posted speed of at least 35 mph and medium-to-high vehicle volumes. • RRFB—appropriate if traffic signal is not warranted and crossing is on roadway with few travel lanes and a posted speed of less than 35 mph and medium-to-high vehicle volumes. Additional Information • NACTO Urban Street Design Guide • Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

COUNTERMEASURES 183 A two-stage left-turn queue box (also known as a Copenhagen‐Left or jug‐ handle turn) designates an area outside of vehicle conflicts for bicyclists to wait for traffic to clear before proceeding in a different direction of travel. It may be used for left or right turns. They may be useful at locations where bicyclists would have to merge across multiple lanes of traffic, would have to wait in a shared travel lane with motorists to turn, or at locations with separated bike lanes or sidepaths where it is not possible for bicyclists to merge into motor vehicle lanes in advance of the intersection. This can be advantageous on roadways with higher volumes of traffic or operating speeds to reduce conflicts between motorists and turning bicyclists. An agency should request permission to experiment from FHWA to use this treatment as it is not approved for use. CMF/Rating A CMF has not yet been determined; initial evidence indicates the safety benefits of this treatment are promising (Chen and Shao 2014). Two-Stage Bicycle Turn Queue Boxes Figure 34. Two-stage turn queue box (left image source: Toole Design Group; right image source: NACTO). Applicable Crash Types Applicable Contexts • Multilane intersections where bicyclists frequently turn left from a facility on the right side of the roadway. • Cycle tracks or bike lanes with multiple adjacent motor vehicle travel lanes with high traffic speeds and/or traffic volumes (NACTO 2012). Special Circumstances • Intersections where bicyclists must cross streetcar or light rail tracks to make a left turn. ST O P Bicyclist ride through/out – STOP sign STOP Motorist drives out into bicyclist – STOP controlled Motorist left turn into pedestrian – parallel path Bicyclist ride through/ out – signalized intersection Motorist right turn into bicyclist – same direction Motorist left turn into bicyclist – opposite direction Motorist right turn into pedestrian – parallel path Pedestrian dash Motorist failed to yield to pedestrian Pedestrian failed to yield Bicyclist crossing path with uncontrolled motorist

COUNTERMEASURESTWO-STAGE BICYCLE TURN QUEUE BOXES 184 Complementary Countermeasures Should be installed with the following treatments: • No Right Turn on Red sign (MUTCD R10-11 series). May be installed with the following treatments: • Green-colored pavement. • LBI. • Pavement markings through the intersection to denote correct bicyclist travel path. • Lighting. Considerations • Use pavement markings to channelize bicycle move- ments and define queuing space. • Consider a physical refuge (e.g., curb extension or jug‐ handle) for queuing bicyclists. • Consider a LBI. • The queue box can also be used to help bicyclist make a right turn from a left-side bicycle lane or cycle track. • The queue box should be positioned laterally in the cross-street, to promote visibility of bicyclists (PBOT 2010). Systemic Safety Potential Potential as a systemic safety improvement at multilane approaches to intersections with high vehicle volumes and high volumes of left-turning bicyclists. Estimated Cost       A typical turn queue box will cost approximately $1,000 per box (Weigand et al. 2013). Potential Effects on Travel Modes Mode Effect Motorists • May improve safety • No impacts studied Bicyclists • May improve safety (Chen and Shao 2014) • May increase delay compared to one-stage left turns Pedestrians • No impacts expected Large Trucks • May improve safety Alternative Treatments • Protected bicycle signal phase for left turns— appropriate in situations where there are high enough bicycle volumes to warrant a signal or there is not a safe location for left-turning bicyclists to queue. • Protected intersection—a protected intersection design provides areas for left-turn movements to queue. Additional Information • Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030: Appendix D • NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 G uidance to Im prove Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety at Intersections N CH RP Research Report 926 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-48123-6 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 2 3 6 9 0 0 0 0