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.

65 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Chapter 5: Refine the Countermeasure Options After developing a preliminary list of countermeasures that address the location’s crash types and safety issues of interest (Chapter 4), it is necessary to assess the appropriateness of each countermeasure within the project’s transportation and land use context. This chapter concludes with a discussion of applying performance measures to evaluate the success of multimodal safety treatments. Design decisions should not be made in isolation, and it is important to recognize that intersection design decisions impact every roadway user. While assessing potential pedestrian and bicycle safety countermeasures, it is important to consider safety, comfort, and mobility trade-offs among the travel modes. The countermeasures identified in Chapter 4 impact each mode differently, as described in the detailed countermeasure glossary entries in the Appendix. This chapter outlines a process for refining the list of potential countermeasures identified in Chapter 4 to fit within the project’s roadway and land use context (the “project context”). It also describes considerations for how the project context may influence a given countermeasure’s ability to improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety. The work started in this chapter will be continued into Chapter 6, where a strategy for final countermeasure refinement to fit within a physically, economically, and politically constrained space will be presented. .5.1 Why Consider the Project Context? This Guide presents many different countermeasure options for improving pedestrian and bicycle safety. Chapter 4 suggests appropriate countermeasures to consider for particular combinations of crash type and traffic context. Because there are typically several countermeasures that can address a given crash type, the next challenge is to narrow down the possible choices. Selecting an appropriate countermeasure from among these choices requires a thorough understanding of the project context. Before starting this step, practitioners should revisit the project purpose established in Chapter 1. As illustrated in Figure 36, project context can vary widely, and a treatment that is effective in one context might not be effective in another. Furthermore, a location’s traffic, land use, and roadway contexts can significantly influence the volume of users, their safety, and the ultimate selection of a priority user. Identify Treatment Options for Creating Safer Intersections Final Countermeasure Selection Evaluate Priorities and Assess Trade-Offs and Viability 466 Frame the Process Analyze Intersection Safety and Identify Issues Identify and Collect the Data for Analysis 1 2 3Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Chapter Countermeasure Options 5Chapter

66 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Balancing Multimodal Needs The community’s transportation policies and land uses (both existing and future) should inform decisions about the community’s transportation infrastructure. Given the diversity of land uses found within any given community, a one-size-fits-all approach to roadway design may be incompatible with community goals to support safe, equitable mobility for all travel modes. For instance, streets that run through neighborhoods providing a combination of housing, shopping, and jobs need to be designed to accommodate people traveling by all modes. Higher volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists should be anticipated in these contexts and there may be many benefits from prioritizing their safety and mobility. Residents will walk or bicycle to shops; employees will arrive by bus, bicycle, or car; and commuters will take transit or drive to another community for work. If all modes cannot be fully accommodated on one street, then alternative (preferably close by or parallel) routes should be made attractive and apparent to the underserved mode(s). In suburban contexts, where land uses are more segregated and distances between destinations are much greater, it is likely that motorists will be the priority user from a mobility standpoint, as the volumes of pedestrians and bicyclists are typically much lower. In environments where pedestrians and bicyclists are not priority users, it is nevertheless beneficial to provide a basic level of accommodation to ensure those people who do travel through the area on foot or by bicycle are able to do so safely. It should also be recognized that even within this broad land use context there may be areas or routes where pedestrians and/or bicyclists are a higher priority. These modal priority decisions deserve careful consideration, as they often result in a different safety, comfort, and operational outcome for each mode. Ensuring Project Viability and Longevity Transportation projects are typically prioritized and selected using several criteria, ranging from expected benefits to consistency with local plans to available funding (see Chapter 1). Local road safety plans, local non-motorized plans, and regional connectivity plans can all influence whether and how a community implements a safety project. Limited funding requires an analysis of the trade-offs associated with various potential alternatives for a given project. The ability to assess these trade-offs requires a thorough understanding of roadway operations, land use context, relevant policies and plans, and—not least— community needs and desires. Each context will have constituencies which advocate for and oppose changes to the status quo, which will likely affect countermeasure support. A public engagement process—particularly one that thoroughly engages those most impacted by the changes—plays an important role in aligning proposed safety countermeasures with community desires, and can also ease project implementation by developing community awareness and securing project buy-in well ahead of time. Figure 36. Contrasting transportation and land use contexts in San Antonio, TX (left), and Alexandria, VA (right). Source: Toole Design

67 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Integrating the transportation and land use contexts also helps ensure that safety investments remain effective well into the future. A planned high-capacity transit route, anticipated shifts in development intensity, or long-term demographic shifts can all change the way a transportation system is used. Incorporating both existing and anticipated future contexts into the treatment selection process provides a level of assurance that the treatment and its associated safety benefits will be sustainable in the long term. 5.2 Define Project Land Use Context When identifying applicable countermeasures, it is critical to understand the project’s land use context. For example, an arterial road in an urban setting will benefit from a different set of safety countermeasures (e.g., a separated bicycle lane or sidewalk) than an arterial road in a rural setting (e.g., a shoulder or sidepath). This section lists potential questions to ask to assist in identifying a project’s land use context, and defines sample roadway context categories ranging from rural to urban core. Identifying Land Use Context This effort uses three sets of questions to identify a project’s land use context. Each set of questions includes potential approaches to answering the questions and information about the set’s broader applicability to identifying effective bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. The answers to these questions will be used in the next subsection to identify the project land use context, which in turn will help refine the list of eligible safety countermeasures. LU-1. What type of area is served by the project? Questions • What is the existing and planned future land use (e.g., urban core, urban, suburban, rural town, rural; transitioning or stable)? • What is the future vision for the area? Approach • Conduct field review • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Review local plans and policy documents • Create land use maps using GIS data from the local jurisdiction Application • Prioritizing countermeasures based on planned future land uses to increase multimodal equity and serve priority users (e.g., prioritize bicycle and pedestrian safety in light of planned transit- oriented development near the project) LU-2. Are there any land uses that require special consideration? Questions • Are there existing or planned major community venues (e.g., schools, parks, commercial or industrial employment centers, higher-density residential) that generate nonmotorized traffic? • Are there land uses that attract users who do not have access to a motor vehicle and must rely upon walking, bicycling, or transit to access destinations? • Are there existing transit stops or planned future transit service in the corridor or at the intersection? • Are there sensitive environmental uses or major environmental features in the area that may constrain or influence countermeasure selection? “A robust and thorough planning process yields its greatest success when we seek to know and understand what we need to plan for.” —FDOT District 5 Multimodal Handbook Recap: Why consider the broader context? • Multimodal Equity • Informed Decision-Making • Funding • Community • Sustainability

68 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Approach • Conduct field review • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Review local plans and policy documents • Create maps of key destinations and environmental features using GIS data from the local jurisdiction Application • Prioritizing countermeasures based on planned future uses, with the goals of increasing multimodal equity and serving priority users (e.g., prioritizing pedestrian crossing times because the project is located along a Safe Routes to School corridor) LU-3. Who are the predominant users of the project intersection or corridor? Questions • What are the existing and planned traffic generators in and around the study area? • Are there land uses that generate local trips? If so, are these walking and bicycling trips? • What are the existing and projected population and employment levels? • Are there special population groups in the study area (e.g., transit-dependent, school children, elderly)? • Are there gaps in how the predominant users or special population groups are currently served? Approach • Conduct field review • Review traffic count (walking, bicycling, and driving) and transit boarding/alighting data • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Review local plans and policy documents • Create demographic maps using census data • Illustrate work travel patterns using Longitudinal Employment Household Dynamics (LEHD) data to identify existing traffic generators • Create land use maps using GIS data from the local jurisdiction to identify existing and future traffic generators • Analyze the existing bicycle and/or pedestrian network to understand gaps that may suppress demand (e.g., lack of sidewalks, bike lanes, or safe crossings) Application • Prioritizing countermeasures based on the project area’s predominant users and the needs of special groups, if applicable. Defining the Project Land Use Context The definition of project land use context has expanded beyond the traditional rural–urban dichotomy to encompass variations in density, land use, building setbacks, and other characteristics. This section and following sections build on NCHRP Research Report 855: An Expanded Functional Classification System for Highways and Streets (Stamatiadis et al. 2017) by explaining how to identify appropriate safety countermeasures based on land use context, transportation characteristics, and user priority (see Figure 37). NCHRP Research Report 855 expands the project context into five distinct categories, as shown in Table 26; these land use contexts may be incorporated into future editions of the AASHTO Green Book (AASHTO 2018). Table 26. Example Land Use Context Categories Context Category Density Land Use Setbacks Bicycle and Pedestrian Demand* Rural Low Agricultural, natural Large Low Rural Town Low–Medium Commercial, some single-family residential Small Moderate to high Suburban Low–Medium Disconnected residential and commercial clusters Varied Low to moderate Urban High Mixed uses Varied Moderate to high Urban Core Very High Mixed uses within and among high-rise structures Small High Source: Adapted from NCHRP Research Report 855 (Stamatiadis et al. 2017).

69 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Intersection-specific safety projects may only fall within one land use context category, while corridor or jurisdiction-wide projects may include intersections that fall within different land use contexts. Because countermeasure appropriateness will vary based on land use, practitioners should clearly document which project locations fall within which land use context categories. State DOTs and other transportation organizations have also defined project context based on regional qualities. Example documents that provide guidance on land use context include the Washington State Department of Transportation’s WSDOT Design Manual (WSDOT 2019), the Florida Department of Transportation’s Context Classification Matrix (FDOT 2017), and the New Jersey and Pennsylvania Departments of Transportation’s joint Smart Transportation Guidebook (NJDOT and PADOT 2008). For example, the Smart Transportation Guidebook defines seven land use contexts, including rural, suburban corridor, suburban center, suburban neighborhood, town/village center, town/village neighborhood, and urban core. These contexts are defined by an analysis of dwelling unit density, building Figure 37.  Five land use contexts identified in NCHRP Research Report 855. Hypothetical Application: Beechum County Fictional Beechum County serves as an instructional example of how this Guide can be used. Using a countywide safety analysis, Beechum County identified 20 intersections with high-frequency and high-severity pedestrian crashes. After referencing the Countermeasure Glossary in the Appendix, county planners and engineers identified 18 possible countermeasures to improve pedestrian safety at their intersections. County staff needed to narrow the list of countermeasures down to apply for federal funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Defining the Project Land Use Context Fourteen intersections are located within the eastern half of the county, which includes a diverse range of commercial and residential uses that have medium density and a range of building setbacks. Most households located in the eastern half of the county rely on automobiles as their primary form of transportation due to the disconnected roadway network. Six of the intersections fell within the western half of the county, which primarily consists of a few houses and structures dotting a farm and forest landscape. These crashes occurred within the few small concentrations of developed areas immediately surrounded by rural and natural areas. Based on this assessment of density, land use, and building setbacks, county staff determined that 14 intersections fell within the suburban land use context, and six fell within the rural town land use context.

70 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS coverage, lot size, lot frontage, block dimensions, maximum building height, and building setback dimensions. The Smart Transportation Guidebook recommends using a mix of plans and community outreach to establish the planned future land use context for a project area (NJDOT & PADOT 2008). 5.3 Define the Project Roadway Type Similar to the land use context, countermeasure appropriateness varies based on the roadway type. Intersections on a local road will benefit from a different set of safety countermeasures (e.g., high- visibility crosswalk) than those on an arterial (e.g., pedestrian hybrid beacon). This section lists potential questions to ask that can help identify a project’s roadway type, and provides examples of roadway type classifications used in different sources. Identifying the Transportation Context The following sets of questions can help transportation agencies and communities develop an understanding of a project’s transportation context, with the goal of refining the list of countermeasures. Each set includes potential approaches to identifying answers to the questions, along with information about the set’s broader applicability for identifying effective bicycle and pedestrian safety projects. T-1. How are people moving around in this area? Questions • Does the intersection primarily serve local or regional travel? • If there are challenges to mobility, what is the nature (e.g., lack of infrastructure, safety, delay, reliability, accessibility)? • Will travel patterns through the intersection be similar in the future? • Are there any major land use or transportation changes proposed that would cause travel patterns to shift? • Do operations currently prioritize motorist mobility over vulnerable user safety and mobility? Approach • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Map LEHD data to illustrate work travel patterns • Review relevant land use plans • Apply existing sub-area or regional model Application • Prioritizing potential countermeasures based on roadway uses (e.g., mini-traffic circles and raised crossings could be prioritized at intersections that primarily serve local traffic) • Determining whether the transportation context is incompatible with existing travel patterns (e.g., roadway geometry encourages speeding through an intersection that primarily serves short, local trips) • Understanding whether a desired change in land use context warrants a change in intersection design (e.g., future transit-oriented development results in an intersection redesign that prioritizes walking, biking, and transit trips over automobile and freight trips) T-2. What is traffic like now and in the future? Questions • What are the existing and projected traffic volumes? • What component of the traffic is freight? • What are the congestion levels? • When do peak traffic volumes occur? • What are the speed characteristics of motorized traffic? Approach • Assess existing traffic data and anticipated traffic volumes • Apply guidebooks such as NACTO’s Urban Street Design Guide (NACTO 2013) and FHWA’s Small Town and Rural Multimodal Networks (Dickman et al. 2016), which provide guidance for assessing how traffic fits within a street’s uses, demands, and activities over the course of a day Application • Balancing intersection design based on the needs and functions of different time periods, not just the peak condition for automobile traffic

71 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS T-3. What is the role of the intersection within the area? Questions • Does the intersection have a major role for one or more specific mode? Which ones? • What is the rest of the surrounding transportation network like—i.e., does it adequately serve the needs of users not prioritized at this intersection? Approach • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Use GIS-based data to map the network Application • Prioritizing potential countermeasures to increase multimodal equity and serve priority users (e.g., an important regional bike route runs through the intersection) T-4. What is transit mobility like now and in the future? Questions • What existing and planned transit serves the area? • What are the transit system’s current and planned operating characteristics in the area (ridership, frequency, service span)? • Where are transit stops located? Are these planned to change in the future? • Are there existing transit stop amenities? Are there signs that transit users’ needs are not being met (e.g., informal paths in the grass, no ADA-compliant landing pad)? • Are crossings safe for transit users? Are they conveniently located? Approach • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Conduct field review and/or observations • Create maps using web-based mapping and/ or transit agency database and mapping • Review the transit agency’s transit development plan Application • Prioritizing potential countermeasures to increase multimodal equity and serve priority users (e.g., bicyclist and pedestrian access at a key transit route at the intersection) • Revisiting and refining countermeasures based on transitway and/or transit stop locations T-5. What is pedestrian and bicycle traffic and infrastructure like now and in the future? Questions • What are the pedestrian and bicycling traffic volumes? • What is the pedestrian crossing activity at intersections and midblock? • How do bicyclists navigate the intersection? • What do the existing and planned sidewalk networks look like? • What do the existing and planned bikeway and trail networks look like? • Do sidewalks and crosswalks meet ADA standards? • Are there sidewalk impediments? • Is there a buffer between the sidewalk and the street? • Is shade or landscaping provided? • Is there nonmotorized user detection at the intersection? • Is there traffic calming at the intersection? • Is the existing bicycle or pedestrian network supporting or suppressing demand? Approach • Assess the condition of the intersection for pedestrians and cyclists as outlined in Chapter 3 (e.g., bicyclist and pedestrian exposure data, conflict and avoidance maneuvers, bicyclist and pedestrian behavior) • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Conduct field review and/or observations • Create maps using web-based mapping and/or local bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure databases and mapping Application • Identifying unmet needs at the intersection (e.g., long distances between crosswalks or intersections, sidewalk gaps) • Assessing how existing conditions could be a barrier to bicycle and pedestrian travel, thus suppressing demand • Prioritizing potential countermeasures to increase multimodal equity and serve priority users (e.g., a key regional bike route runs through the intersection, a key regional job training facility is located in the vicinity of the intersection, a primarily transit-dependent

72 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS community is located within ¼ mile of the intersection and its associated transit stop) • Revisiting and refining countermeasures based on the location and quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities Defining the Project Roadway Type Roadways are typically classified based on their network function and the connectivity provided between and within activity centers. Network function is the role of the roadway in both regional and local contexts (e.g., principal arterials typically emphasize regional mobility over local access, while local streets serve a primarily local access function). Connectivity is based on the facility length and the types of activity centers connected by the roadway. Roads often pass through multiple land use contexts and therefore need to balance a wide range of users and needs; roads that do so should have a range of design controls that allow them to operate safely in different contexts while serving unique community needs. NCHRP Research Report 855 defines five categories of roadway type based on motorist mobility: interstates, principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, and local roads. Pedestrian networks are classified by their presence and width: none provided, minimum (ADA) width, wide (more than the minimum) width, and enhanced width (room for landscaping, street furniture, etc.). Bicycle networks are classified in terms of citywide, neighborhood, and local connectivity, but the type of accommodation is not specified. Alternatively, AASHTO’s Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities (2019) specifies types of bicyclist accommodation based on relative separation from motorists (i.e., shared lanes, bicycle lanes, shoulders, separated bicycle lanes, and shared use paths). Some state DOTs and other transportation organizations define roadway types based on their mobility purpose using the AASHTO definitions, but also recommend considering land use context when making decisions for design controls and the type of accommodation to be provided for bicyclists and pedestrians. For example, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) defines six roadway types in its Project Development and Design Guide (MassDOT 2006): freeways, major arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and local roads (see Figure 38). The guide instructs practitioners not to rely solely on the roadway types to establish design controls, but to consider the actual role that the roadway plays in the transportation system (e.g., a high-speed roadway regional corridor that passes from a rural context to a rural town context may serve as both an arterial and a local road in terms of its mobility function). The City of San Francisco’s SF Better Streets Guide (City and County of San Francisco 2015) establishes sixteen street types that combine the transportation purpose and the land use context, ranging from Downtown Commercial Streets to Paseos (Pedestrian-Only Streets). The guide notes that locations where different street types intersect may warrant unique design treatments such as gateway countermeasures to highlight the transition from one street type to another. Because this Guide focuses on identifying appropriate safety countermeasures for intersections, it is important to consider the implications when two different roadway types intersect. Historically, the higher-order roadway type has governed the process for identifying user priority and balancing user needs. However, given the potential negative “All roads cannot be all things to all people. However, all users can be fully supported by the total network.” — NCHRP Research Report 855 Figure 38. Schematic representation of roadway type (MassDOT 2006).

73 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS consequences of this approach for pedestrians and bicyclists, practitioners should take a holistic view of the intersection, considering the answers to the questions posed above. Community goals, local plans and policies, planned land use changes, and the intersection’s role within regional walking, biking, transit, freight, and automobile networks should all be considered when defining the intersection’s governing roadway type. Practitioners may find that a current roadway type does not always match the land use context or transportation needs of its surrounding communities. Consider a high-speed, high-volume arterial that connects key regional destinations but passes through several small towns, or a low-volume suburban collector that experiences speeding because it provides more capacity than necessary. Full-scale restructuring of an incongruous roadway type can be expensive and politically infeasible, but practitioners have some options for marginally improving incompatible roadway contexts. Countermeasures such as crossing islands, curb extensions, protected intersections, and road diets enable practitioners to subtly alter a roadway type to more accurately reflect its land use context. 5.4 Document Project and Geometric Constraints A qualitative analysis of the intersection’s physical characteristics and geometric constraints can provide vital input into the safety countermeasure selection process. An in-field site visit or desktop review using internet mapping tools can reveal right- Beechum County County staff assessed project users at each of the project intersections and held an internal meeting to acquire agency consensus on the priority users for the systemic safety project: • Four signalized suburban intersections: Based on high roadway speed, high pedestrian demand, and the intersections’ regional role as arterials in the county transportation system, staff determined that the project user priority would be shared by both automobiles and pedestrians • Six unsignalized suburban intersections: Based on the intersection of moderate- and low-speed roadways, high pedestrian demand, and the intersections’ proximity to important community destinations (i.e., schools, libraries, grocery stores), staff determined that project user priority would be assigned to pedestrians. • Three unsignalized rural town intersections: Based on the intersection of low- and high-speed roadways, high pedestrian demand, and location along regional freight corridors, staff determined that project user priority would be shared by both freight vehicles and pedestrians. • Three unsignalized rural town intersections: based on the intersection of low- and high-speed roadways, high pedestrian demand, and location within rural town centers, staff determined that project user priority would be assigned to pedestrians. Beechum County County staff further investigated the 20 project intersections in terms of their transportation context: • Eight of the suburban intersections are located at signalized intersections of principal arterials and minor arterials. • Six of the suburban intersections are located at unsignalized intersections of local roads and collectors. • All six of the rural town intersections are located at unsignalized intersections of local roads and major or minor arterials. The combined transportation and land use context at the six rural town intersections supported county staff suspicions that high- speed regional traffic was conflicting with local pedestrian activity.

74 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints. For example, a roundabout may appear to be a good countermeasure at a location that experiences turning conflicts between motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, though there are concerns about negative safety impacts on the vision disabled as well as pedestrians and bicyclists (Rodegerdts et al. 2010, Schroeder et al. 2017, De Brabander and Vereeck 2007, Daniels et al. 2008). However, an examination of maps, photographs, and in-field conditions could reveal that insufficient right-of-way is available to construct a roundabout without right-of-way acquisition. Identifying Constraints The following questions can assist in assessing the physical characteristics of project locations and potential constraints. P-1. What are the existing physical conditions? Questions • What is the existing right-of-way width? • What is the existing roadway functional classification? • What is the existing roadway geometry? • What are the existing speed limits? • What is the condition of the roadway/ sidewalk/transit facility? • What is the intersection traffic control? Approach • Assess the intersection’s physical condition as outlined in Chapter 3 • Conduct field reviews • Use GIS-based data, including aerials to map areas of interest • Additional guidance on assessing roadway geometry at the network and intersection-specific level can be found in the Highway Safety Manual. Application • Revisiting and refining potential countermeasures based on physical conditions • Determining whether an intersection’s geometry is incompatible with its surrounding land use context (e.g., a high-volume, high-speed intersection adjacent to dense residential neighborhoods and an elementary school) • Clarifying trade-offs related to constrained space in order to identify opportunities to obtain space by narrowing or removing space allocated to motor vehicles Quantifying Potential Constraints Potential constraints identified by the answers to the above questions can be quantified in terms of their severity. For example, in the case of the roundabout described above, would the necessary right-of-way taking involve removing a portion of a property’s parking lot or acquiring a sliver of landscaping? This information will help determine whether the constraint is manageable or would make the countermeasure difficult or infeasible to implement. It will also influence policy and financial considerations, discussed next. Beechum County County staff assessed project users at each of the project intersections and held an internal meeting to acquire agency consensus on the priority users for the systemic safety project: • Four signalized suburban intersections: in-field visits revealed that pedestrian signals lacked countdown timers. • Six unsignalized suburban intersections: in-field visits confirmed that illumination at crossings was not pedestrian- scale, and that on-street parking at two of the intersections was underutilized due to the availability of residential parking in driveways. • Six unsignalized rural town intersections: in-field visits revealed that residents living near three of the intersections (those not along freight corridors) strongly objected to any countermeasure that would add additional flashing lights to their local streets (i.e., flashing beacons).

75 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS 5.5 Define Policy and Financial Context As highlighted in Chapter 1, knowledge of the local policy and financial context can support efforts to align proposed safety projects with local interests. For example, if other types of roadway or infrastructure (e.g., sewer) work are planned, a safety countermeasure project could be incorporated into the larger project. If there are known constraints on project funding for safety projects, it may be necessary to consider a phased approach to improvements or to use countermeasures which are relatively cheaper, but provide a similar benefit, such as the use of flexible delineators and paint to create a curb extension in place of a fully constructed curb alternative (see Figure 39). Identifying the Policy and Financial Context The following questions can be used to help clarify a project’s policy and financial context, which can influence eligible safety countermeasures. Beechum County During the project framing process, county staff had identified an upcoming statewide grant application process for federal safety funding (HSIP) as the focus of their systemic safety study and review of eligible countermeasures for high-crash intersections. Staff referenced their long- range transportation plan to confirm that the county had approved an ambitious safety benchmark: "Eliminate serious and fatal crashes over the next 10 years." Because pedestrians are vulnerable road users, county staff recognized that it was critical to reduce pedestrian crashes at the project intersections to meet the county’s long-range safety goal. County staff also took a close look at their Transportation Improvement Plan and realized that four of the signalized suburban intersections in their project list already had projects in the planning phase that would upgrade crosswalks, add pedestrian countdown signals, and modify signal timing to favor pedestrians. As a result, those four intersections were removed from the county’s project list. Figure 39. Examples of curb extensions with varying levels of construction complexity. Example of a curb extension created with flexible delineators and colored pavement. Source: Toole Design Example of a curb extension with slotted drain to minimize drainage impact. Example of a traditional curb extension which required new drainage infrastructure (Seattle, WA).

76 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS PF-1. What is the policy and financial context? Questions • What are the existing and future regional priorities related to this intersection area? • What projects are slated for investment? • What are the existing and future local goals and priorities related to this intersection area (e.g., Vision Zero plan)? • What is the available budget for improvements? • Are there opportunities to leverage other projects or to phase improvements to spread costs? Approach • Conduct interviews with key stakeholders • Review local and regional plans and policy documents • Review funding programs and other roadway improvement projects impacting the project area Application • Prioritizing bicycle and pedestrian countermeasures to build on intersection projects already planned or programmed for investment • Communicating the connections between proposed countermeasures and local and regional plans and policies, to build support for the project • Determining level of funding available to refine countermeasures • Determining potential for project phasing Decision-Making Based on the Policy and Financial Context State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) and other transportation organizations make design decisions based on their unique policy and financial contexts. For example, the Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) uses mode split targets established in the Portland 2035 Transportation System Plan (PBOT 2018) to help guide its planning processes. PBOT plans to increase the mode share of daily non-drive alone trips to 65% in Portland’s eastern neighborhoods by 2035. Projects that prioritize non- drive alone modes (walk, bicycle, transit, carpool) will help PBOT meet its 65% mode share goal. 5.6 Identify Project Users and Priority Users Once the intersection’s land use context, roadway type, and policy and financial context have been identified, practitioners should thoughtfully consider the information gathered thus far about the intersection’s users. In an ideal world, agencies would always be able to provide the best facilities at the same location for all roadway users. Since this is rarely if ever possible, the mobility needs of one mode may have to take precedence over other modes, which may require trade-offs for the countermeasures being considered at the intersection or considering alternative routes. For example, at the intersection of a local road and an arterial, the mobility of through traffic may be prioritized due to heavy peak-hour traffic volumes. However, there remains a local need for access and safe crossing of the arterial roadway at all times of the day. While people approaching the intersection from the local street may not be the priority users at the location during peak periods, their needs should still be considered. During peak periods, those users may experience additional delay to cross the arterial roadway to ensure the arterial is serving its mobility function. However, the local users should be provided infrastructure and opportunities to safely cross the arterial. During non-peak hours, the priority users can be changed to allow local user needs to be considered equally with the arterial roadway users. For example, cycle lengths can be shortened during non-peak hours to create additional safe crossing opportunities, reduce delays, and reduce the risk of noncompliance with the signal. User priority may also vary by intersection approach. Motorists may be the priority users of the arterial roadway, but the cross-street priority users may be school children or bicyclists if the intersecting roadway serves a school or is operating as a bicycle boulevard. The presence of higher volumes of vulnerable users in this case should influence decisions for selecting traffic control at the location to provide a higher level of protection to the vulnerable users. For example, protected signal phasing may be desirable to eliminate conflicts between turning motorists and crossing pedestrians and bicyclists.

77 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Identifying Project Users Practitioners should revisit the questions posed in Section 5.3 to identify project users and user needs. Based on land use and transportation contexts, project users can include pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, passengers in transit vehicles, and freight. Each project user has their own unique needs, which are broadly outlined in Table 27. Table 27. Project User Needs Project User User Needs Pedestrian • Sidewalk availability. Is a sidewalk network available? • Destination accessibility. Are diverse, dense, and interesting land use destinations available within a 0.25–0.5 mile radius of the project? • Network efficiency. Is the street network connected with short blocks to allow for efficient pedestrian travel? • Sidewalk safety. Are sidewalks sufficiently wide and separated from traffic to improve safety and pedestrian comfort? • Crossing safety. Are features present to induce motorist yielding or require them to stop, such that there are sufficient crossing opportunities? • Types of pedestrians. Are there special user groups, such as children, seniors, or people with disabilities, that need to be accommodated? • Volume of users. Are the sidewalks and crossings safely designed to accommodate current and near- future demand? Bicyclists • Network efficiency. Is the bicycle network sufficiently connected to allow bicyclists to travel to their destinations with as little delay as possible and in the shortest amount of time? • Bicycle facility safety and comfort. Are bicycle facilities sufficiently wide and separated from traffic to improve safety and bicyclist comfort? • Crossing safety. Are features present to induce motorist yielding or require them to stop, such that there are sufficient crossing opportunities? • Bicycle network. Is this intersection a key part of a bicycle network? In particular, is it a crossing on an advertised high-comfort facility designed to attract all ages and abilities, such as a bicycle boulevard or shared-use path? • Types of bicyclists. Are there special user groups, such as children, seniors, or people with disabilities, that need to be accommodated? • Volume of users. Are the facilities (on-street and crossings) safely designed to accommodate current and near future demand? Automobile • Network efficiency. Does the roadway network have enough connections and capacity to allow vehicles to travel to their destinations with reasonable delay and predictable travel time (high reliability)? Transit • Network efficiency. Does the roadway network have enough connections and capacity to allow vehicles to travel to their destinations with reasonable delay and predictable travel time (high reliability)? • Roadway accessibility. If applicable, does the physical design of the roadway allow transit vehicles to make turns or access adjacent transit stops? • Transit network. Is this intersection along a designated high-capacity and/or frequent-service transit route? If the intersection is signalized, is transit signal priority provided? • Bus stop capacity. Is sufficient curb space available to accommodate the number of buses that would need to use the stop at any given time? • Passenger access. See the pedestrian questions above. Freight • Network efficiency. Does the roadway network have enough connections and capacity to allow vehicles to travel to their destinations with reasonable delay and predictable travel time (high reliability)? • Roadway accessibility. Does the physical design of the roadway network allow trucks to navigate the roadway to reach desired destinations? • Volume of users. Do large number of trucks need to make turns at this intersection?

78 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Table 28. Conceptual Priority User Identification Matrix Typical Characteristics* Rural Rural Town Suburban Urban Urban Core Local Road Vehicle Speed Medium Low Low Low Low Bike Demand Low Medium to High Low to Medium Medium to High High Pedestrian Demand Low Medium Medium High High Priority User Auto Pedestrian Auto/Bicycle/Ped Bicycle/Ped Bicycle/Ped Collector Road Vehicle Speed High Medium High Low Low Bike Demand Low Medium Low to Medium High High Pedestrian Demand Low Medium Low High High Priority User Auto Auto/Ped Auto/Bicycle Bicycle/Ped Bicycle/Ped Minor Arterial Vehicle Speed High High High Medium Medium Bike Demand Low Low Low to Medium Medium High Pedestrian Demand Low Low Low Medium High Priority User Auto Auto Auto Auto/Bicycle/Ped Bicycle/Ped Principal Arterial Vehicle Speed High High High High Medium Bike Demand Low Low Low Medium Medium Pedestrian Demand Low Low Low Medium Medium Priority User Auto Auto Auto Auto Auto/Bicycle/Ped *Transit and freight should be considered equally with the priority user on any transit- or freight-designated corridor, respectively. Defining the Priority User After identifying project users, practitioners should determine the priority user. The process for identifying the priority can vary from an internal conversation to a more formal assessment. Table 28 outlines a conceptual matrix that could be used to clarify potential user priorities based on the transportation and land use context. Along designated transit and freight routes, they (transit and freight) should be considered to have the same priority as the priority user. Within school zones, pedestrians and bicyclists should be given consideration as priority users regardless of context. Practitioners can use this matrix as a starting point for discussions about project-specific priority users, but not as a prescriptive process for assigning priority. Practitioners must still consider the detailed land use, transportation, policy, and financial contexts at each project location to identify the appropriate priority user. For example, imagine a medium speed collector in a low-density suburban neighborhood that runs through a transit-oriented development (TOD) district slated for high-density, mixed-use development in the jurisdiction’s long-range transportation plan. The portion of the collector road that passes through the future TOD district may warrant a shift in priority user from Auto to Auto/Bicycle/Pedestrian, or even Bicycle/Pedestrian.

79 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS 5.7 Refine the List of Potential Countermeasures The initial list of countermeasures developed as described in Chapter 4 should now be refined to remove countermeasures which are not viable or practical due to one of the following conditions: • Land use context (Section 5.2). Countermeasures should fit the context to be as effective as possible. For example, countermeasures such as pedestrian bridges are unlikely to succeed in urban contexts where there is significant at-grade crossing demand due to adjacent land uses. Likewise, raised crosswalks or mini traffic circles would be inappropriate in suburban contexts where the roadway is operating at speeds in excess of 30 mph. Information on suitable countermeasure contexts is provided in each Countermeasure Glossary entry in the Appendix. • Roadway type (Section 5.3). Countermeasures should be reviewed against the roadway type to assess their potential to create safety hazards which are unintended or disproportionate to the countermeasure’s benefit if implemented. For example, countermeasures which require removing deceleration lanes to create space on constrained rights-of-way may be inappropriate on roadways with posted speeds of 45 mph or higher. In this case, the added crash risk for motorists may outweigh the pedestrian or bicyclist safety benefits of the countermeasure (see Section 5.3 for additional guidance for assessing costs and benefits). • Project geometric constraints (Section 5.4). Project geometric constraints frequently limit potential countermeasures. A traffic analysis and planning process may be required to assess the feasibility of removing turn lanes, travel lanes, or parking lanes to obtain additional space to implement countermeasures at locations which have constrained right-of-way. • Policy and financial constraints (Section 5.5). Project policy or financial constraints commonly limit potential countermeasures. Examples include insufficient funding to construct a countermeasure, lack of interagency agreement for maintenance responsibility (e.g., state agency pays for construction and maintenance of roadway, but not pedestrian or bicycle infrastructure), and policies which restrict the use of a countermeasure such as raised crosswalks or bicycle signals. • Priority users (Section 5.6). Decisions regarding priority users can limit countermeasure options. For example, the prioritization of motorist mobility may limit the use of rechannelization strategies or signal timing adjustments to provide leading or protected phases for pedestrians or bicyclists. The thorough process through which crash, transportation, and land use characteristics are identified and synthesized can lead to effective safety solutions that best prioritize intersection users in the location’s specific context. Beechum County Based on their assessment of crash characteristics, land use context, roadway type, project and geometric constraints, policy and financial context, and project users, county staff developed the following refined list of countermeasures for their systemic safety project: • Four signalized suburban intersections: Leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) are proposed, in conjunction with pedestrian countdown signals, refreshed high- visibility crosswalk markings, and NO RIGHT TURN ON RED signs. • Six unsignalized suburban intersections: Staff proposed high-visibility crosswalk markings, pedestrian-scale lighting at crosswalks, and advance yield lines. In two locations with underutilized residential parking, staff proposed to remove on-street parking to free up space for pedestrian crossing islands. • Three unsignalized rural town intersections (freight corridor): County staff proposed high-visibility crosswalk markings, rectangular rapid flash beacons, and pedestrian warning signs. • Three unsignalized rural town intersections (not on a freight corridor): County staff proposed mini-traffic circles, pedestrian warning signs, and chicanes for additional traffic calming. Using the transportation and land use context, county staff can make a strong case for their selected countermeasures.

80 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS The next challenge is getting an identified solution programmed for implementation. Practitioners must be able to explain the purpose and need for a specific safety improvement to the public, stakeholders, and decision-makers. The process outlined above provides practitioners with this information. However, when motor vehicle-oriented performance measures are used to prioritize competing projects for funding, the value of a bicycle or pedestrian safety treatment may not be apparent in the result and the project may seem ineffective. Incorporating and heavily weighting multimodal performance measures into the project prioritization process allows bicycle and pedestrian safety projects to compete on a more level playing field with other types of transportation projects. The next section outlines multimodal performance measures that may be used in this process. 5.8 Making the Case and Measuring Success Except in extreme cases (e.g., multiple traffic fatalities), it can be difficult to communicate the value of a safety treatment that prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian safety using motor vehicle-oriented performance measures. This section identifies performance measures that can track the multimodal effects of safety treatments. See FHWA’s Guidebook for Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Performance Measures (Semler et al. 2016) for additional information on performance measures for pedestrian and bicyclist transportation, including methods, applicability, and example applications. Performance Measures Performance measures allow transportation agencies to align decisions with established agency and community goals, facilitate before-and-after studies of projects, and provide for accountability. The following are performance measures that directly relate to intersection safety. Crashes • Number of crashes or rate of crashes over a designated period, typically separated by mode and severity. This performance measure directly shows how intersection safety improvements have affected instances of crashes at the intersection over time. It can be reported in terms of the number of crashes or the financial cost of crashes. (Reporting the cost of crashes in a dollar amount can serve as a useful counterpoint to other performance measures that can be monetized, such as delay.) Because pedestrian and bicycle crashes are relatively rare, it is important to look at several years of crash data to understand trends outside of random year-to-year fluctuations. Practitioners have also begun to test the efficacy of surrogate measures to predict crashes and assess conflicts such as near misses (see Chapters 2 and 3). The Importance of a Flexible and Thoughtful Approach It is vital for transportation practitioners to look beyond prescriptive solutions. Whether working on a single intersection or a group of similar intersections with shared roadway characteristics and safety challenges, an inflexible approach inevitably leads to ineffective projects. The following questions outline some of the unique challenges and opportunities to consider as part of intersection safety projects: • The roadway transitions from one context and type to another at or through the intersection: How can a safety project raise awareness about the transition? • Multiple high-crash intersections share common crash, transportation, and land use characteristics: Is there a package of systemic safety treatments that can be efficiently applied at all these locations? • Existing roadway access at the intersection does not match the existing and future context: What opportunities exist to formalize or better manage access? • Crash trends indicate high speeds or driving under the influence as key factors in multiple crashes: Are additional measures, such as education or enforcement, appropriate additions to safety-related infrastructure?

81 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Mode Split • Percentage of total trips by transportation mode. This measure can show whether and how bicycle and pedestrian mode share at the intersection has changed over time. Agencies such as PBOT have set mode split goals in their long-range transportation plans and have begun the process of monitoring the change over time in mode split. Population Served by Walk/Bike/Transit • Proximity of pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure and services to residential populations. This measure can show the potential impact of a safety treatment in terms of the number of people who benefit from the treatment (e.g., by opening a safe access route that had not existed previously). Crossing Delay • Average delay associated with biking and walking through the intersection, or average or actual number of pedestrian and bicycle crossing opportunities per hour. These measures assess the ability of persons to safely cross a roadway and their potential to engage in risk-taking behavior. Average delay can also be used to assess pedestrian level of service. These measures can be applied at both signalized and uncontrolled crossings. Crossing Opportunities and Crossing Lengths • Average or actual distance between designated pedestrian and bicycle crossing locations, average or actual crossing length at designated pedestrian and bicycle crossing locations. Related to, but distinct from crossing delay, these measures helps clarify the effectiveness of pedestrian and bicyclist networks. Long roadway crossings increase potential exposure to conflicts with motorists in crossings. Extensive out-of-direction travel can discourage walking and bicycling, and increase risky crossing behavior. The out-of-direction travel time for multimodal users should be taken into consideration as a part of overall delay calculations where crossings are being restricted or discouraged. Network Completeness • Proportion of the transportation network usable for people walking or bicycling. This assessment should include all elements of a facility (for example, at a signalized crossing for pedestrians: sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, among other elements). An intersection safety treatment can preserve or improve network completeness, thus better meeting the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists. Washington, D.C.’s, District Department of Transportation’s (DDOT's) program for measuring multimodal transportation performance, District Mobility (DDOT 2017), is testing the use of network completeness as a measure of bicycle accessibility. This can be an important equity metric in communities where a lack of provisions for bicyclists and pedestrians results in disproportionate injuries or fatalities due to inadequate infrastructure. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Operating Space • Proportion of public right-of-way dedicated to pedestrian and bicyclist activities, including sidewalks, bike lanes, plazas, median refuges, and crosswalks. The potential impact of a safety treatment on pedestrian and bicyclist space shows how the improvement alters the transportation context to point to the appropriate priority user (e.g., pedestrians). User Perception of Comfort, Safety, or Level of Service • How safe or comfortable a user feels under various network scenarios. This performance measure predominantly applies to infrastructure and roadway network conditions and shows how an intersection safety improvement can impact perceived safety. Chapters 3 and 4 discuss methods to track this performance measure. Volume • The measured (i.e., counted or projected) number of pedestrian and bicyclists in a specified area during a designated period. An intersection safety treatment can increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists using the intersection over time. The assessment should consider both current and future demand.

82 GUIDANCE TO IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS Adherence to Traffic Laws or Observations of Risky Behavior • How well pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists obey traffic laws at the intersection. Locations with poor traffic control compliance or where people exhibit risky behavior typically indicate an area of need (e.g., jaywalking at locations with long cycle lengths and gaps in traffic, crossing outside of a crosswalk at intersections where only one leg is marked). A safety improvement that meets an unmet bicycle or pedestrian need may clarify who has the right-of-way, reduce the need or incentive to cross against the signal, or otherwise reduce illegal maneuvers at the intersection. 5.9 Assessing Performance Practitioners employ a range of strategies for assessing the performance measures listed above, ranging from planning-level assessments to detailed quantitative analyses. Practitioners can assess existing and predicted future pedestrian and bicycle mode split, conduct stakeholder interviews to acquire a baseline understanding of intersection user perceptions, or conduct GIS-based network analyses to see how an intersection improvement will contribute to network completeness. Practitioners already conduct operational and microsimulation analyses to understand how changes in signal timing will affect motorists, and similar analyses can be conducted to understand impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians. When selecting design solutions for an intersection, it is important to apply performance measures that match community or project goals. This approach helps ensure that countermeasures that are consistent with these goals rise to the top when compared with others on the basis of performance; post-implementation, the measures can be used describe progress made toward the goals as a result of the project, which can help develop community, stakeholder, and decision-maker support for future, similar projects. Equally important as identifying appropriate performance measures is to understand which measures are less important. Practitioners often defer to vehicle delay or the intersection volume-to- capacity ratio as the most important performance measure, particularly if codified as a decision-making criterion, but it may be more important to prioritize safety or some other consensus goal. To manage these discussions, it is critical to be explicit about what is being measured, how it compares to each other measure, and how it could be perceived by the public. At this point in the process, the safety issues and intersection context have been defined and used to provide guidance on selecting appropriate countermeasures. Chapter 6 will outline a process for identifying project priorities and trade-offs, and for making informed decisions to finalize countermeasure selection. Beechum County After developing safety countermeasures for their 20 priority intersections, county staff turned their attention to road corridors with high- severity pedestrian crashes. They located four road corridors in the suburban land use context with high-severity pedestrian crashes. Upon closer examination of crash reports, county staff confirmed that the pedestrian crashes involved pedestrians crossing mid-block between distant signalized intersections. Mid-block crossings with pedestrian refuges and flashing beacons were identified as logical countermeasures to implement at these locations. However, pedestrian counts conducted at each roadway corridor did not meet the county's warrants for mid-block crossings. County staff met to discuss the results of the mid- block crossing warrants and the transportation, land use, and priority user contexts along each corridor. Staff revisited the county’s long-range land use plan and noted that two of the four corridors were located in neighborhoods slated for increases in density and pedestrian-generating land uses. These two corridors were also located on high-ridership transit routes. Although these two corridors did not meet mid-block crossing warrants, county staff chose to plan for future conditions and demand, and proposed implementing mid-block crossing treatments at these locations. County staff monitored operations at both locations over a one-year period to confirm that the new safety countermeasures operated safely and effectively.