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.

46 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Chapter 4: Identify Treatment Options for Creating Safer Intersections This chapter presents key principles for identifying an initial list of potential countermeasures to address specific crash types or safety performance objectives identified in the data analyses (Chapter 3). This initial list of countermeasures should be developed without considering potential constraints, to allow all treatment options that may effectively resolve the project’s safety goals to be compared (Chapter 1). Chapters 5 and 6 provide guidance to hone this initial list of countermeasures and ultimately choose an implementable option based on an analysis of project constraints and context. The identification of a preferred countermeasure that is not implementable due to project constraints may result in an adjustment to a project’s scope (Chapter 1) or may result in a decision to develop a phased approach to countermeasure implementation to allow future implementation of the preferred countermeasure. 4.1 Guiding Principles Guiding principles are ideas that shape decision- making processes to ensure that final results meet certain goals or objectives. Safety project principles are likely influenced by and tied to local, state, and national policies and performance measures, and should be internally consistent. This Guide presents design principles to keep in mind as countermeasures are identified. However, it is important to remember that the agency or agencies with jurisdiction over the project likely have larger goals, a mission statement, or both; these should also be considered during the design process. For example, many Vision Zero cities have adopted a core principle that one life lost is too many. For these cities, while there remains a need to balance competing mobility goals for all modes, the safety of all users, and particularly pedestrians and bicyclists, is a top priority. The following are key design principles to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety at intersections which should be considered when selecting countermeasures. Countermeasure Countermeasure Selection 566 the Process Safety and Identify Issues Identify and Collect the Data for Analysis 1 2 3Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Identify Treatment Options for Creating Safer Intersections 4Chapter and Assess Trade-Offs

47 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Assume people will bicycle and walk. Creating safe pedestrian and bicycling environments requires an assumption that people will bicycle and walk at the location. Many locations are unsafe for people walking or bicycling due to design decisions that assumed those users would not be present. Regardless of their potential volume in various contexts, there is a responsibility to ensure all people who use the intersection are provided safe, supportive infrastructure. In many instances, the lack of appropriate infrastructure for people walking and bicycling between and at intersections contributes to crashes, including pedestrian dart, failure to yield, parallel and perpendicular, and crossing path crashes. Providing safe infrastructure between intersections can promote the use of the infrastructure provided at intersections. Minimize and manage conflict points. To reduce the likelihood of crashes, conflict points should be carefully considered and minimized to the extent practical. This principle will typically be accomplished by providing separated infrastructure at the same grade as the roadway (e.g., separated bike lanes, shoulders, or sidewalks) or separated operational phasing with traffic signals (e.g., all-walk phase [exclusive] pedestrian phasing or a bicycle signal). In more limited cases, this principle can be accomplished by providing grade-separated bridges or tunnels or by prohibiting access. However, these treatments require careful consideration of pedestrian and bicycle travel needs. If they are poorly considered or implemented, their use can worsen safety outcomes (see Figure 25). For example, bridges or tunnels which are perceived as less convenient or less secure to use will often result in people crossing the roadway at grade (see Figure 25, left). Likewise, prohibiting pedestrian crossings on one intersection leg to improve motor vehicle capacity is not likely to be complied with if a pedestrian’s natural route requires crossing the other three intersection legs (see Figure 25, right). Minimize travel time and delay. This principle is particularly important for pedestrians and bicyclists, who expend energy to move and are exposed to the elements to a much greater degree than motorists. Extending walking or bicycling trip time by prohibiting crossings, using long cycle lengths, or requiring multi-stage crossings for the sake of motorists’ convenience may lead to risky crossing behaviors, decreased compliance with traffic control devices or countermeasure treatments, and lower levels of walking and bicycling. Pedestrians and bicyclists should be given equal consideration to motorists when assessing intersection performance metrics. Minimize exposure to conflicts. Where there is potential for conflicts with motorists, it is important to minimize the length of time people walking and bicycling are exposed to potential conflicts by keeping crossing and merging distances as short as practical. Figure 25. Pedestrian bridge that substantially increases crossing distance (left) and intersection prohibiting a crossing along one leg (right). Source: Toole Design Source: Google Earth

48 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Control speeds and minimize speed differentials at conflict points. Where there is potential for conflicts with motorists, the speed differential between motorists turning or merging across the path of bicyclists or pedestrians should be minimized to the greatest extent practical. At locations where people must cross roadways at uncontrolled crossings, the design of the roadway should result in operating speeds appropriate for the context and discourage operating speeds above the speed limit. Speed is directly related to injury severity; where it is not possible to provide low motor vehicle speeds, it is critical to separate nonmotorized road users. Prioritize comfort. To support and encourage walking and bicycling, the physical and operating environment must be designed to be accessible, comfortable, safe, secure, and inviting. Pedestrians and bicyclists are already more exposed to weather, noise, air pollution, and personal security concerns— stresses that motorists experience to a much lesser degree due to the buffer of a motor vehicle. Applying this principle requires considering the impact the physical infrastructure has on the user experience. For example, narrow sidewalks located close to high- speed roadways are less comfortable and provide a lower level of comfort compared to sidewalks separated from roadways by a buffer. Provide and convey a predictable, reasonable path. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists need to know where they will be safe and have a clear understanding of where they are expected to travel. The use of signs and markings can help make this clear where the built infrastructure does not sufficiently do so. Manage sight lines and visibility. Clear sight lines are imperative for all users to be able to navigate conflict points and to anticipate potential conflicts. Street furniture, landscaping, and utilities occasionally block sight lines and should be sited with care. In many locations, parked cars create the biggest impediment to clear visibility. Ensure accessibility. The law requires people with disabilities to be accommodated on the public right-of-way. This principle is important from both a transportation equity and a safety standpoint. Proposed projects should be checked against the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) to ensure they meet design requirements for accessibility. Adherence to the above principles will help create a safe, comfortable environment for walking and bicycling. They should be referred to often as needed when identifying appropriate countermeasures for the intersection’s issue(s) and context. 4.2 Identifying Countermeasures Resources This Guide is designed to work in tandem with the PEDSAFE and BIKESAFE online countermeasure selection systems. These systems help users develop a comprehensive list of countermeasures to address specific crash types or safety performance objectives. Identifying crash types is discussed in Chapter 2. The following are common safety performance issues which are known to contribute to crashes or discourage walking or bicycling: • Missing infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks, shoulders, pedestrian signals, bike lanes) • Conflicts and near-misses • Excessive vehicle speeds • Failure of drivers to yield or stop for crossing pedestrians or bicyclists • Inadequate visibility • Insufficient separation between modes • Noncompliance with traffic controls • Development and environmental barriers (large block sizes, freeways, railroads, bodies of water, steep grades)

49 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS In addition to the BIKESAFE and PEDSAFE online countermeasure selection systems, these additional resources may be helpful to identify potential countermeasures: • FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations • AASHTO Guide for Development of Bicycle Facilities • AASHTO Guide for the Planning and Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities • NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings • NCHRP Report 500: Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan • NCHRP Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis Additional NCHRP resources were in development at the time of writing, including a Guide for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety at Alternative Intersections and Interchanges (NCHRP Project 07-25, forthcoming). Traffic Context Considerations for Countermeasure Selection The starting point for identifying any countermeasure is identifying the problem, as discussed in Chapter 3. Once the problem is identified, context quickly comes into play, and it is helpful to understand the factors that may impact countermeasure effectiveness. At roadway crossings, research consistently finds that countermeasure effectiveness is impacted by the following: • Traffic volumes (all users) • Motor vehicle traffic operating speed and approach speed at conflict points • Presence of multiple threat conditions (number of travel lanes) These variables define a traffic context and influence a motorist’s willingness to yield or stop for people crossing a roadway. The greater the user volume, the higher the motor vehicle speed; and the more complex the intersection, the greater the need to directly influence motorist behavior and to separate travel modes. This Guide uses the concept of “tiers” (Table 14) to organize suggested countermeasures to address specific crash types and safety issues, and to help users hone in on a recommended countermeasure or combination of countermeasures. The tiers are organized as follows: • Tier 1: countermeasures that support motorist yielding • Tier 2: interventions to induce motorist yielding • Tier 3: countermeasures that separate modes or require motorists to stop To use the table, identify the table cell corresponding to the combination of the vehicle ADT at the crossing point, the speed limit, the number of travel lanes crossed in total, and the presence or absence of a raised median. The number in the cell is the traffic context tier that will be applied in later steps of the countermeasure selection process.

50 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Identifying Potential Countermeasures Based on Crash Type Once the traffic context tier has been identified, the next step is to identify potential countermeasures that address specific crash or conflict types. Table 15 through Table 18 list countermeasures demonstrated to be effective for addressing the top five pedestrian crash types, while Table 19 through Table 24 list countermeasures demonstrated to be effective for addressing the top seven bicycle crash types. For example, if the safety concern for a crossing is Motorist Failed to Yield to Pedestrian, Table 15 provides lists of countermeasures that have been shown to be effective to address this safety concern. If the intersection or crossing does not have a crash history (e.g., a proactive approach to safety is being used), consider the types of crashes that occur at similar intersections. The lists in these tables are organized by traffic context tier, and a given countermeasure may appear in more than one tier. Not every countermeasure in the list will be suitable for any given location due to site-specific characteristics. In addition, it may be desirable to implement a lower-cost countermeasure first and see whether it produces the desired outcome (e.g., greater motorist yielding, reduced motorist speeds) before moving on to countermeasures that cost more or are more difficult to implement. These constraints and considerations are the subject of later steps in the process (Chapters 5 and 6), where the set of potential countermeasures is refined and, subsequently, the choice of countermeasure(s) is finalized. Guidance on learning more about the suggested countermeasures in these tables is provided in the next section. Note that site conditions, existing operational behaviors, or project constraints may result in a need to consider a countermeasure recommended for a different tier. In all cases, it is assumed the crossing location is visible to approaching motorists. If this is not the case, supplemental countermeasures will be required to improve visibility and slow motorists to an approach speed that meets sight distance requirements or requires them to stop. * Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph, Tier 3 should be considered. ** Raised medians must be at least 6 feet wide to serve pedestrians. See the AASHTO Bicycle Guide for lengths to serve bicyclists. Where median width is less than these values, review category of 4+ lanes without raised median. Table adapted from AASHTO Bicycle Guide and the FHWA STEP Guide Legend: 1 Tier 1: Traffic context generally supports motorist yielding; countermeasures are generally less expensive and require less process than other two tiers to implement 2 Tier 2: Traffic context generally requires intervention to induce motorist yielding; countermeasures are generally less expensive and require less process than Tier 3 to implement 3 Tier 3: Traffic context generally requires intervention to require motorist to stop or to physically separate pedestrians and bicyclists from traffic; often the most expensive and may require extensive public process Table 14. Recommended Countermeasure Tiers Depending on Traffic Context Roadway Type Vehicle ADT < 9,000 Vehicle ADT 9,000–12,000 Vehicle ADT 12,000–15,000 Vehicle ADT ≥ 15,000 (Number of Travel Lanes and Median Type) Speed Limit (mph) ≤30 35 ≥40* ≤30 35 ≥40* ≤30 35 ≥40* ≤30 35 ≥40* 2 Lanes 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 3 3 Lanes 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 Lanes with raised median** 1 1 2 1 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4+ Lanes without raised median 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

51 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 15. Potential Countermeasures for Motorist Failed to Yield to Pedestrian Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Advance stop/yield lines Continuous raised median Crossing islands Gateway treatments High-visibility crosswalk markings In-street pedestrian crossing signs Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Rectangular rapid flash beacon Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase Continuous raised medians Crossing islands High-visibility crosswalk markings Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Roundabout Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Road diet/rechannelization Signal timing* All-walk phase Continuous raised median Crossing barriers Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacons All-walk phase* Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacons Advance stop/yield lines Curb extensions Crossing barriers Gateway treatments Grade-separated crossing In-street pedestrian crossing signs Mini-traffic circles Rectangular rapid flash beacon Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 26. Motorist Failed to Yield to Pedestrian Source: PBCAT

52 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 16. Recommended Countermeasures for Pedestrian Failed to Yield and Pedestrian Dash Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Advance stop/yield lines Continuous raised median Crossing islands Gateway treatments High-visibility crosswalk markings In-street pedestrian crossing signs Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signal* Rectangular rapid flash beacon Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase Crossing islands Continuous raised median High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signal* Road diet/rechannelization Signal timing* Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Roundabout All-walk phase Continuous raised median Crossing barriers Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signal* Road diet/rechannelization Signal timing* Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Roundabout Moderate Active warning beacons All-walk phase* Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacons Advance stop/yield lines Crossing barriers Curb extensions Gateway treatments Grade-separated crossing In-street pedestrian crossing signs Mini-traffic circles Rectangular rapid flash beacon Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 27.  Pedestrian Failed to Yield Source: PBCAT

53 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 17. Recommended Countermeasures for Motorist Left Turn into Pedestrian – Parallel Paths Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Continuous raised median Crossing islands Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacons All-walk phase* Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Protected phases* Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacons Curb extensions Grade-separated crossing Mini traffic circles Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 28. Motorist Left Turn into Pedestrian – Parallel Paths Source: PBCAT

54 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 18. Recommended Countermeasures Motorist Right Turn into Pedestrian – Parallel Paths Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting No turn on red signs* Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Road diet/channelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase* Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Protected phases* Raised crossings High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting No turn on red signs* Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* All-walk phase* Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Raised crossings Lighting No turn on red signs* Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian countdown signals* Protected intersections Protected phases* Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacons All-walk phase* Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Mini-traffic circles Protected phases* Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacons Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Grade-separated crossing Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 29. Motorist Right Turn into Pedestrian – Parallel Paths Source: PBCAT

55 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 19. Recommended Countermeasures for Bicyclist Crossing Paths with Uncontrolled Motorist Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Advance stop/yield lines Crossing islands Gateway treatments High-visibility crosswalk markings In-street pedestrian crossing signs Signal timing* Lighting Parking restrictions /daylighting Continuous raised median Road diet/rechannelization Rectangular rapid flash beacon Roundabout Continuous raised median Crossing islands High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Continuous raised median Crossing barriers Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacon Bicycle lane extension through intersections Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacon Advance stop/yield lines Crossing barriers Curb extensions Gateway treatments Grade-separated crossing In-street pedestrian crossing signs Mini-traffic circles Rectangular rapid flash beacon Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal Figure 30. Bicyclist Crossing Paths with Uncontrolled Motorist Source: PBCAT

56 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 20. Recommended Countermeasures for Bicyclist Ride Through/Out – Sign-Controlled Intersection Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Advance stop/yield lines Crossing islands Continuous raised median High-visibility crosswalk markings In-street pedestrian crossing signs Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Continuous raised median Crossing islands High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Continuous raised median Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Moderate Active warning beacon Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Pedestrian hybrid beacon Raised crossings Active warning beacon Advance stop/yield lines Curb extensions Grade-separated crossing In-street pedestrian crossing signs Mini-traffic circles Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Figure 31. Bicyclist Ride Through/Out – Sign-Controlled Intersection Source: PBCAT

57 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 21. Recommended Countermeasures for Motorist Drive Out into Bicyclist – Sign-Controlled Intersection Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Moderate Bicycle lane extension through intersections Mini- traffic circles Raised crossings Curb extensions Curb extensions Grade-separated crossing Mini- traffic circles Curb extensions Mini- traffic circles Figure 32. Motorist Drive Out into Bicyclist - Sign-Controlled Source: PBCAT

58 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 22. Recommended Countermeasures for Bicyclist Ride Through – Signalized Intersection Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Continuous raised median Crossing islands Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Passive bicycle signal detection* Protected intersections Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Passive bicycle signal detection* Protected intersections Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Bicycle signals* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Passive bicycle signal detection* Protected intersections Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Bicycle signals* Curb extensions Mini-traffic signals Pedestrian countdown signals* Raised crossings Traffic signal Bicycle signals* Curb extensions Grade-separated crossing Mini-traffic signals Pedestrian countdown signals* Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic signals Pedestrian countdown signals* Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 33. Bicyclist Ride Through - Signalized Intersection Source: PBCAT

59 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 23. Recommended Countermeasures for Motorist Left Turn into Bicyclist – Opposite Direction Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High Continuous raised median Crossing islands Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Bicycle signals* Continuous raised median Crossing islands Grade-separated crossing Hardened centerline High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacons Bicycle lane extension through intersections Bicycle signals* Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Protected phases* Raised crossings Traffic signal Active warning beacons Bicycle signals* Curb extensions Grade-separated crossing Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal Curb extensions Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 34. Motorist Left Turn into Bicyclist – Opposite Direction Source: PBCAT

60 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 24. Recommended Countermeasures for Motorist Right Turn into Bicyclist – Same Direction Effectiveness Tier 1: Supports motorist yielding Tier 2: Requires intervention to induce motorist yielding Tier 3: Separate modes or require motorists to stop High High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting No turn on red signs Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting No turn on red signs* Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossing Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Bicycle signals* Grade-separated crossing High-visibility crosswalk markings Leading bicycle interval* Leading pedestrian interval* Lighting No turn on red signs* Parking restrictions/daylighting Protected intersections Protected phases* Raised crossings Road diet/rechannelization Roundabout Signal timing* Moderate Active warning beacons Bicycle lane extension through intersections Bicycle signal* Bike boxes* Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Mini-traffic circles Mixing zone treatments Protected phases* Raised crossings Traffic signal Two-stage bicycle turn queue boxes Active warning beacons Bike boxes* Bicycle signal* Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Grade-separated crossing Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal Two-stage bicycle turn queue boxes Bike boxes* Curb extensions Curb radius reduction Mini-traffic circles Traffic signal Two-stage bicycle turn queue boxes *Countermeasures only appropriate for a signalized location. Figure 35. Motorist Right Turn into Bicyclist - Same Direction Source: PBCAT

61 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 25 provides a high-level summary of the effectiveness, public process needs, and applicability to specific crash types of the countermeasures listed in Table 15 through Table 24. For the purposes of this table, "effectiveness" is listed as low (L), medium (M), or high (H) based on available CMFs, research, and/or best practice knowledge. The NCHRP Project 15-63 contractor's final report provides details about how effectiveness was determined (Nordback et al. forthcoming). A companion table in Chapter 6 (Table 29) allows the practitioner to weigh tradeoffs between modal users, construction cost, maintenance cost, public process, and effectiveness when assessing a particular countermeasure. Table 25. Countermeasure Summary Matrix Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports Motorist Yielding Tier 2: Requires Intervention to Induce Motorist Yielding Tier 3: Separates Modes or Requires 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 W ith Un co nt ro lle d M ot or is t Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — ST OP s ig n M ot or is t D riv es O ut In to Bi ke — St op C on tr ol le d Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — 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 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 T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Sa m e Di re ct io n M ot or is t L ef t T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Op po si te 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 Crossing islands H H H 3 Curb extensions M M M 1

62 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports Motorist Yielding Tier 2: Requires Intervention to Induce Motorist Yielding Tier 3: Separates Modes or Requires 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 W ith Un co nt ro lle d M ot or is t Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — ST OP s ig n M ot or is t D riv es O ut In to Bi ke — St op C on tr ol le d Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — 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 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 T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Sa m e Di re ct io n M ot or is t L ef t T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Op po si te D ire ct io n 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 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

63 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Countermeasure Effectiveness Public Process Motorist Traveling Straight Motorist Turning Tier 1: Supports Motorist Yielding Tier 2: Requires Intervention to Induce Motorist Yielding Tier 3: Separates Modes or Requires 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 W ith Un co nt ro lle d M ot or is t Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — ST OP s ig n M ot or is t D riv es O ut In to Bi ke — St op C on tr ol le d Bi ke R id es T hr ou gh /O ut — 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 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 T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Sa m e Di re ct io n M ot or is t L ef t T ur ni ng in to Bi ke — Op po si te D ire ct io n 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

64 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Learning More About Specific Countermeasures The Appendix provides a Countermeasure Glossary that defines each countermeasure listed above and provides supplemental information that will be useful when refining the countermeasures under consideration, following the process described in Chapters 5 and 6. The countermeasures provided in the glossary 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. The Countermeasure Glossary is arranged in alphabetical order for ease of reference. 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 assessing 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, and >$150,000). • Potential effects on travel modes. A brief listing of potential positive and negative effects to travel modes. • Alternative treatments. A listing of alternatives to the countermeasure, if applicable. • Additional information. A listing of additional resources to learn more about the countermeasure. Where available and applicable, research citations are provided in the countermeasure glossary. 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. When assessing a countermeasure, note that there are two main types of countermeasures: traffic control (e.g., involving a signal) and design (e.g., an on-street marking or constructed form, such as a crossing island). Traffic control countermeasures can be highly effective, but may be viewed as shorter-term solutions to a problem. Design countermeasures, on the other hand, may be simple or quite complex, the latter of which tend to take more time and resources, and therefore necessitate more commitment and, often, capital. These variables (e.g., time horizon, commitment, capital) will be further discussed in Chapter 6, but are critical to the ultimate success of the countermeasure eventually selected and implemented.