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.

4 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Introduction The purpose of this Guide is to help practitioners choose and apply appropriate pedestrian and bicyclist intersection countermeasures for the crash types that account for more than half of all pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities. The Guide is relevant to a range of contexts (e.g., facility types, land use patterns, travel speeds) and will help practitioners: • Understand the difference between reactive and proactive (systemic) safety approaches; • Understand the importance of creating safe and comfortable intersection conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists; • Identify safety issues and problems for pedestrians and bicyclists; • Understand data needs and limitations related to bicyclist and pedestrian safety; • Understand the trade-offs between safety, comfort, and operations for different road users; • Provide strategies to determine modal priorities to facilitate decision-making; • Assess the high-level safety and operational performance of intersections; and • Choose appropriate countermeasures, countermeasure combinations, and policies to address identified safety issues and goals. An overarching objective is to provide practitioners with fundamental safety, operations, and design principles to develop intersections that address safety needs and match community expectations. Safety Trends Improving transportation safety is a top priority of jurisdictions across the United States. While the rate of motor vehicle crashes reached historic lows in recent years, it began to increase in 2014. The incidence of pedestrian and bicycle crashes is also trending upward after a relatively slow, but steady decline from the 1970s (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). In 2015, pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities represented nearly 18 percent of all traffic-related fatalities in the U.S. (see Figure 3)—the highest proportion in over 20 years—and accounted for as many as 25 to 40 percent of all traffic fatalities in some urban areas (NHTSA 2018). A total of 5,494 pedestrians and 829 bicyclists were killed in traffic crashes in the U.S. in 2015, and another 70,000 pedestrians and 50,000 bicyclists were injured (NHTSA 2017). Intersections are challenging locations for all road users, but can be especially dangerous for pedestrians and bicyclists. Approximately 27 percent of pedestrians and 38 percent of bicyclists killed from 2014 through 2016 were struck at intersections, according to data compiled in the Fatality Analysis Pedestrians and bicyclists have consistently been disproportionately killed and injured in crashes compared with motorists due to their inherent vulnerability. Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (NHTSA 2018), American Community Survey (U.S. Census Bureau 2019) 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 Pe de st ria n Fa ta liti es (F AR S) Pe de st ria n Co m m ut e M od e Sh ar e (A CS ) Pedestrian Fatalities Pedestrian Commute Mode Share 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 17 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 19 75 19 77 19 79 19 81 19 83 19 85 19 87 19 89 19 91 19 93 19 95 19 97 19 99 20 01 20 03 20 05 20 07 20 09 20 11 20 13 20 15 20 17 Bi cy cl is t F at al iti es (F AR S) Bi cy cl is t C om m ut e M od e Sh ar e (A CS ) Bicyclist Fatalities Bicyclist Commute Mode Share Figure 1. Pedestrian Fatalities and Commute Mode Share, 1975–2017 Figure 2. Bicyclist Fatalities and Commute Mode Share, 1975–2017

5 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Reporting System (FARS) (NHTSA 2018). In urban areas, these numbers were even higher: 32 percent of pedestrian fatalities and 44 percent of bicyclist fatalities occurred at intersections or were intersection related. Often, these fatalities occurred while crossing two-way, undivided streets with no traffic control. Other factors, such as a lack of roadway lighting, large number of lanes, and high vehicle speeds, compound safety problems for non- motorized road users at intersections. Strategies for Improving Intersection Safety The built environment presents many challenges for the practitioner seeking to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety. While many of the pre-1950s urban areas of the United States were designed to accommodate pedestrians and generally have lower motor vehicle operating speeds, the vast majority of the built environment constructed since the 1950s was constructed to prioritize motor vehicle travel with minimal to no provision for pedestrians or bicyclists (see Figure 4). This more recent built environment has contributed to a higher rate of pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities and injuries nationwide (see Figure 3). Agencies have typically used crash data to identify locations needing safety improvements. High crash locations are then reviewed to diagnose problems and select appropriate changes to intersection geometry, traffic signals and markings, or a combination of these and other intersection features. While this reactive strategy works well for responding to high crash locations, it tends to miss opportunities to proactively address safety issues at higher-risk locations before a crash occurs. The reactive method is particularly problematic for locations that do not experience high numbers of crashes, as it cannot account for the random nature of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, which tend to be scattered throughout the network and move around over time. Locations that share similar risk factors, but may not have a history of crashes, may not be addressed in time to prevent future crashes. Figure 3.  Deaths from motor vehicle crashes, by mode. Figure 4.  Example roadways: (left) without sidewalks, bikeways, or crossing treatments, and (right) with minimal pedestrian intersection treatments and no bicycle intersection treatments. Source: Toole Design Note: Data exclude nonvehicle occupants not classified as pedestrians or bicyclists. These "unclassified" fatalities represent less than 1 percent of annual traffic-related fatalities. Source: Fatality Analysis Reporting System (NHTSA 2018) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Vehicle Occupant Fatalities Motorcyclist Fatalities Bicyclist Fatalities Pedestrian Fatalities

6 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS To resolve this issue, practitioners are shifting to a proactive (systemic) approach to identify intersection characteristics that are likely to create a higher risk of crashes. These factors include nearby land use, traffic volume and speed, crossing distance, lighting, signal timing, intersection control, bus stop presence, and intersection geometry, among many other factors. This approach allows agencies to proactively mitigate higher-risk locations and more effectively deploy lower-cost engineering improvements, thereby treating a larger number of locations to reduce their crash risk before fatalities and serious injuries occur. These proactive systemic and risk-based approaches also allow agencies to tap into policy solutions that affect all parts of the transportation network. For example, agencies can comprehensively address concerns related to speeding by modifying policies, laws, and design practices that affect the setting of speed limits. Tools to achieve the intended outcome of lower traffic speeds range from narrowing lane widths, installing traffic calming measures, and increasing speed enforcement, to implementing speed zone practices and design treatments suitable for school zones. When appropriate speed limit and design policies are in place, agencies can then make more-targeted design decisions at specific crossing locations to reinforce desired operating speeds and improve safety. This type of decision framework is often driven by a focus on sustainable safety or a Safe System/Vision Zero approach which accelerates safety programs by focusing on eliminating fatalities and serious injuries. These programs are based on the ethical premise that, at a population level, many users will make mistakes that may result in crashes, but people should not die as a result of human error while using the road network. While road users are still responsible for safe behavior, Safe System or Vision Zero jurisdictions take the view that system designers, operators, and public safety officials are also responsible for transportation safety and should do all in their power to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries. Safety Decisions and Trade-Offs Proactive Vision Zero strategies often require agencies to assess tradeoffs. While the need to consider and prioritize safety at intersections is clear, making changes to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety can be complicated, as it is but one of many competing goals at intersection locations. Motor vehicle safety, road user delay, and accommodating buses, trucks, and emergency vehicles are some of the other factors considered during the decision- making process. Pedestrians and bicyclists, despite being especially vulnerable at crossing locations, may not necessarily be the prioritized road users. Roadway agencies are also responsible for managing traffic operations and are under pressure to reduce delay, an especially challenging demand in denser built environments. Decisions made to improve safety or reduce delay for motorists may directly impact the safety of nonmotorized road users—positively in some cases and negatively in others. For example, consider an intersection without right- turn lanes that experiences increasing motor vehicle traffic demand over time, as development and travel patterns strain existing capacity. The increase in traffic volume may result in increased property damage crashes during peak periods and some instances of injuries. To reduce delay and address the increase in motor vehicle crashes, the roadway agency may elect to install right-turn lanes. These lanes can allow motorists to experience less delay at the intersection and may reduce rear-end crashes, but they also negatively affect other road users. If the addition of a turn lane results in the removal of a bicycle lane, bicyclists’ safety may be reduced. Crossing distances for pedestrians increase as lanes are added, and the right-turn lanes may reduce the rate at which turning vehicles stop or yield to pedestrians if they have the effect of concentrating right-turn volume or increasing motorist turning speeds. If pedestrians perceive the modified intersection to be less safe, they may choose to cross away from the intersection where there seems to be fewer conflicts; however, vehicle speeds can be higher away from the intersection, resulting in more severe crashes.

7 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Many transportation agencies acknowledge the negative impacts of design decisions that prioritize motorist throughput in locations with higher pedestrian and bicyclist demand. Higher vehicle volumes are consistently associated with increased pedestrian and bicyclist crash risk (Thomas et al. 2017a) and suppressed pedestrian and bicyclist volumes. Unfortunately, lower pedestrian and bicyclist volumes also contribute to increased crash risk by reducing motorist expectations that they will encounter nonmotorized road users (Thomas et al. 2017a; Nordback et al. 2014; Elvik and Bjørnskau, 2017). Improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety can create a virtuous cycle that is referred to as “safety in numbers.” This concept results from actions which increase walking and bicycling activity, which elevates motorist expectations they may encounter pedestrians and bicyclists, which in turn improves the safety of people walking and bicycling. As safety improvements that support walking, bicycling, and transit activity are implemented, it becomes safer and often more convenient for people to walk, bicycle, and take transit—which produces the safety in numbers effect. Research has helped advance the transportation profession’s knowledge of this phenomenon, as well as the most-effective strategies to achieve it. Using This Guide As more agencies develop innovative solutions to improve safety for people walking and bicycling, the toolbox of potential safety countermeasures continues to grow. Research on more than 50 promising or proven countermeasures intended to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists at intersections was reviewed during the development of this Guide. Given the broad range of potential solutions, practitioners must decide which countermeasure, or combination of countermeasures, should be selected to most effectively address a particular problem. Practitioners must also consider whether there is a greater community benefit in deploying low-cost countermeasures broadly across the network versus investing more in locations with demonstrated safety problems. Additionally, practitioners must contend with the reality that the existing transportation system was largely designed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic. This condition creates a significant challenge to providing accommodations for people walking and bicycling where right-of-way is constrained. In many locations, providing pedestrian or bicycle facilities will require reducing the space allocated to motor vehicles or acquiring new land. Acquiring right-of-way to build preferred solutions for nonmotorized users would be more feasible without budgetary constraints. However, financial and other limitations require agencies to make difficult decisions regarding safety and mobility improvements. These constraints may result in agencies prioritizing one mode over another, or result in a desire for low-cost safety improvements or operational changes that result in safety gains. This Guide is intended to help transportation agencies as they grapple with these decisions. The Guide focuses mainly on conventional intersections and related countermeasures. For information on alternative intersection selection, see the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Primer on Intersection Control Evaluation (ICE) (2018a) and the forthcoming Guide for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges. Each chapter in the Guide is useful as an individual resource, but the Guide is organized sequentially to provide insight into the safety identification process from beginning (framing the problem) to end (countermeasure selection), following the steps shown in Figure 5. It is recommended that users review the entire Guide at least once. However, it is anticipated the reader will go back and forth between different steps of the safety identification process as needed. These steps are covered in the Guide’s chapters as follows: Chapter 1: Frame the Process provides a high-level explanation of the key considerations and decisions needed at the outset to ensure a smooth, coordinated effort to address safety. Chapter 2: Identify and Collect the Data for Analysis explores necessary and optional data types and sources for analyzing and understanding pedestrian and bicyclist safety and risk at intersections. Chapter 3: Analyze Intersection Safety and Identify Issues presents strategies and methods for using the data and sources identified in Chapter 2 to assess intersection safety and identify risk factors.

8 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Chapter 4: Identify Treatment Options for Creating Safer Intersections explains how to use identified crash characteristics, risk factors, and other criteria to select potential countermeasures for bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections. Chapter 5: Refine the Countermeasure Options focuses on considering the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and other road users in combination within the land use and transportation context to help refine the countermeasure options. Chapter 6: Final Countermeasure Selection covers the last two steps of the process, featuring a framework for considering the trade-offs and effects of safety countermeasures and design improvements that allows agencies to consider benefit–cost calculations and other performance outcomes. This information will help the practitioner finalize the countermeasure selection for an identified location. Chapter 7: Conclusions and Epilogue summarizes highlights from the Guide and provides a brief overview of the importance of project evaluation as an epilogue to the countermeasure selection process. Appendix: Countermeasure Glossary expands on the countermeasures covered in Chapter 4 by providing key information for practitioners to consider when applying Chapters 5 and 6 to refine and finalize countermeasure options. To help orient readers, the beginning of each chapter features the process diagram (Figure 5) with the relevant step(s) highlighted. Additional Information The chapters also point to relevant design resources that agencies can consider when working through the process, as well as relevant requirements and restrictions established in resources like the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and guidance from the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Other design resources that are gaining popularity among cities, such as those developed by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and other tools and guides developed by FHWA, NCHRP, and other agencies to build on existing knowledge and reference material are highlighted. A sample of those resources is listed in Table 1. Figure 5.  General Assessment and Approach to Countermeasure Selection Identify Treatment Options for Creating Safer Intersections Countermeasure Options Final Countermeasure Selection Evaluate Priorities and Assess Trade-Offs and Viability 4566 Frame the Process Analyze Intersection Safety and Identify Issues Identify and Collect the Data for Analysis 1 2 3Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Refine the

9 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 1. Relevant Design Resources and Guides Referenced in this Guide Resource Title Publishing Agency A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Commonly used resource for transportation agencies outlining current research and design practices for roadway and geometric design. AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities Builds on other AASHTO guidance to provide specific recommendations and current practice for designing streets and intersections for bicyclists. AASHTO Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities Provides current research and recommendations for pedestrian facilities and other pedestrian considerations in roadway and geometric design. AASHTO Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Guidelines and requirements for traffic control devices to standardize and regulate their use across the United States. FHWA Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide Detailed planning and design recommendations for separated bike lanes (also known as cycle tracks) to supplement other established guidance for designing bikeways. FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE) Interactive database of countermeasures intended to improve pedestrian safety with tools assisting in countermeasure selection and problem identification FHWA Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (BIKESAFE) Interactive tools for bicycle safety countermeasures and features to help agencies select appropriate countermeasures. FHWA Traffic Control Devices Handbook A companion to the MUTCD that is intended to help agencies interpret and translate MUTCD requirements into practice. ITE Urban Street Design Guide Innovative design resources and recommendations for urban contexts that focus on appropriate design to support bicycling, walking, and transit. NACTO Recommended Design Guidelines to Accommodate Pedestrians and Bicycles at Interchanges Design recommendations and research on strategies to support bicycle and pedestrian travel at interchange locations. ITE Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations Research and guidance to help agencies select countermeasures and treatments for improving pedestrian safety at uncontrolled crossing locations, based on a range of factors. FHWA Achieving Multimodal Networks: Applying Design Flexibility and Reducing Conflicts Guidance to help agencies understand the flexibility inherent in AASHTO and MUTCD design documents to implement countermeasures and treatments to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at intersections. FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide Guidance to help transportation practitioners consider and make informed decisions about trade-offs when selecting among potential bikeway types. FHWA