Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways (2016)

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.

CONTENTS 1 SUMMARY 5 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background, 5 Study Purpose, 6 Study Approach, 6 Content, Organization, and Use of This Report, 8 9 CHAPTER TWO POLICIES GUIDING SELECTION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Complete Streets and Related Policies and Guidance, 9 Toward Zero Deaths and Vision Zero, 11 Examples of Effective Practices in Planning, Design, Land Use, Engineering, Operations, and Financing, 12 13 CHAPTER THREE GUIDANCE AND CURRENT PRACTICES REGARDING SELECTING AND PRIORITIZING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS Existing Resources for Identifying and Prioritizing Pedestrian Crossing Improvements, 13 Current Practices, 25 35 CHAPTER FOUR RECOMMENDED APPLICATIONS, EFFECTIVENESS, AND CURRENT USE OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS Roadway Design Features, 36 Traffic Control Devices, 47 Summary of Application of Traffic Control Devices, 60 61 CHAPTER FIVE EXAMPLES OF GUIDANCE TOOLS AND ORIGINAL CASE EXAMPLES ON PROVISION OF SAFER PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Examples of State and Local Jurisdictions Crossing Treatment Guides, 61 Original Case Examples, 66 Case Examples—Innovative Treatments and Approaches from Other Sources, 80 83 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Further Research Needs, 84 Final Conclusions, 84 86 ACRONYMS AND TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 88 REFERENCES 94 BIBLIOGRAPHY 95 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE AND SUMMARY OF SURVEY RESPONSES 113 APPENDIX B DETAILED SYNTHESIS OF LITERATURE REVIEW OF TREATMENTS Note: Many of the photographs, figures, and tables in this report have been converted from color to grayscale for printing. The electronic version of the report (posted on the web at www.trb.org) retains the color versions.

SUMMARY APPLICATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSING TREATMENTS FOR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS Pedestrian safety and mobility in the United States are in a constant state of growth and change. Increasing national, state, and local priorities to increase walking generate an even greater need to improve safety for pedestrians. New traffic control devices, designs, research, and guidance continually emerge. In their efforts to encourage more walking, some jurisdictions may also consider a variety of goals such as energy conservation, con- gestion mitigation, community livability, and economic equity, whereas others have not embraced such goals. As a result, pedestrian safety policies and practices often differ widely among cities and states, with little uniformity and sometimes without optimal con- ditions for pedestrians. This study compiles information on the state of existing practices regarding applica- tion of pedestrian crossing improvements, and does not produce new guidance. However, many key resources and tools, as well as examples of emerging state and local guidance and practices, are highlighted throughout the report. The study was carried out by (1) sur- veying state departments of transportation (DOTs) and local transportation agencies, (2) identifying and synthesizing current recommended practice and policy guidance, and (3) performing a comprehensive literature review of safety evidence for more than 25 pedes- trian crossing treatments. For the survey, all 50 state transportation agencies and a select set of local (municipal and county) jurisdictions were asked about existing practices, what treatments are being applied by their jurisdictions, outcomes for different treatments, and continuing needs for information and tools to help in these processes. Forty states (80%), including the District of Columbia, responded to the requests to participate in the survey. Nineteen of the 39 targeted local city and county jurisdictions responded. The literature review and survey results were summarized and case examples were highlighted of more comprehensive pedestrian safety practices, as presented in chapter five of this report. The study confirmed that a wide array of policies and practices exist with regard to application of crossing treatments, decision frameworks, and approaches used to create safer pedestrian crossings. In addition to policy requirements, a number of states and cities are also voluntarily adopting policies such as Complete Streets, and Toward Zero Deaths or Vision Zero frameworks to help meet community goals for safer and better-connected pedestrian networks. Many states and local jurisdictions—more than 700 in all, accord- ing to Smart Growth America—are committed to using Complete Streets approaches, to develop and retrofit urban and suburban streets in ways that will meet the needs of safe travel for all. Complete Streets is often considered an approach to providing a balanced transportation system. The National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) has further developed principles and design guidance that demonstrate this collaborative organization’s vision of how a safer, more accessible network and improved social and eco- nomic opportunities can be enhanced through design. A number of jurisdictions indicated that they are finding NACTO to be a valuable resource for their communities.

2 At least 16 major cities have adopted a Vision Zero philosophy to address traffic safety. Vision Zero strategies place responsibility on the system designers and operators as well as the users of the transport system to minimize the possibility of people dying or becoming seriously injured on the nations’ streets and highways. The cities that have adopted Vision Zero principles operate under the assumption that traffic fatalities are preventable, and that road owners and operators have an ethical responsibility to try to prevent them. Vision Zero programs generally include data-driven approaches to analyze problems and evidence-based methods to prioritize the use of resources to most effectively reduce pedestrian fatalities and injuries. In addition, some of these same cities are coordinating a wide variety of stakehold- ers, public processes, and program areas. Examples of comprehensive program areas include setting lower speed limits and enhancing enforcement through automated means, and imple- menting new designs and operational measures to reduce conflicts and pedestrian crashes. Vision Zero cities such as New York City and San Francisco are highlighted in this report. At the same time, the survey results revealed that about 20% of states and 11% of local jurisdictions responding infrequently or never use crash data to help identify and prioritize locations for pedestrian safety improvements. However, a majority frequently or always use crash data to varying degrees. Public input and complaints are used at least as widely by states and even more so by the select local jurisdictions to identify locations that may need safety improvements. At least a few states (e.g., California, North Carolina) and a number of local jurisdictions (e.g., Seattle, Washington; Washington, D.C.; Boulder, Colorado) have also applied knowledge of systemic risks identified from research studies such as the Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations to assess loca- tions and identify improvements, and some are using TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562, Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings, to help assess and home in on the right type of traffic control devices to use at currently unsignalized crossings. When it comes to identifying the right treatments, research sponsors and jurisdictions have collaborated to develop an extensive body of safety evidence beyond the aforemen- tioned reports, including some crash-based evidence, over the past couple of decades. How- ever, the quality and quantity of crash-based and operational evidence vary for different treatments. The available information has been widely captured and interpreted in exist- ing resources and expert-developed tools such as PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (an interactive online resource), Toolbox of Countermea- sures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes [containing crash modifica- tion factors (CMFs) for pedestrian crashes], and a number of other guides including earlier NCHRP reports. However, a number of these guides are being used relatively infrequently to help select countermeasures. Instead, there appears to be greater reliance on locally tai- lored design and other guides, AASHTO and NACTO guides, and use of crash-based evi- dence such as from the CMF Clearinghouse and locally developed CMFs. Practitioners all expressed the need for more crash-based safety evidence for countermeasures. Treatments of all types are also being applied in varied circumstances and in different combinations. Design treatments that are used sometimes by a vast majority (90% or more) of states and local jurisdictions surveyed include pedestrian median crossing islands and curb extensions. A majority of states also sometimes use raised median islands for pedes- trian safety. Raised medians are typically applied on multilane roads (with speed limits as low as 25 mph). Pedestrian median islands may be installed at unmarked and some marked crosswalks on urban arterials where signalized intersections are infrequent. Both medians and median islands are used with marked crosswalks and signs, most often in conjunction with other treatments such as curb extensions, rectangular rapid flash beacons (RRFBs) or overhead and other flashing devices, and sometimes pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs). Street trees and context-sensitive designs were also mentioned. However, a few agencies qualified that their primary reason for using medians was for motor vehicle reasons, that this

3 was the typical design for all arterial streets, or the treatment was applied when space and other circumstances allowed. Curb extensions are most often used in downtown and urban settings or along main roads/trunk lines that pass through cities and towns. Issues mentioned included presence of a significant number of pedestrians and the need to shorten crossing distances or reduce exposure. Some agencies pointed out the need to have on-street parking present on the approaches, as best practice guides suggest. Some jurisdictions use curb extensions to help enforce parking restrictions to improve visibility at crossings. Cities such as Cam- bridge, Massachusetts, with Complete Streets priorities select designs including narrow radii, curb extensions, and raised pedestrian crossings to calm traffic, aiming to provide safer interactions in residential areas without relying extensively on traffic control devices and enforcement. Other design treatments used by a majority of states include pedestrian overpass or bridge and underpass/tunnel (usually with restrictions to locations with significant barri- ers such as freeways or natural barriers), narrowed lane widths, reduced corner radii, and enhanced lighting. Less than half of states employ corridorwide speed calming or raised devices including raised crosswalks or speed tables. The main differences in application among the local jurisdictions surveyed were that most local jurisdictions also use raised crosswalks or speed tables, and a higher percentage also use corridorwide speed calming, while fewer use underpasses and tunnels; these differences may reflect in part the types of streets under state versus local management. Although there is limited evidence of safety effectiveness, 100% of states use pedes- trian warning signs, often in combination with other treatments, although some appear to preferentially try signs and pavement markings before other more extensive changes. Most local jurisdictions surveyed also use warning signs, again usually in combination with other treatments. Traffic signals with pedestrian countdown signals (PCSs) are also now being routinely used by almost all jurisdictions when signals are replaced or installed, as per Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) guidance. This means that other potentially effective traffic control strategies such as protected left turns, exclusive pedestrian phases, more walk time, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), and right turn on red (RTOR) restrictions may be tried at appropriate locations when needed. About two-thirds of states and three-fourths of the local jurisdictions use LPIs on occa- sion, with higher percentages sometimes using RTOR restrictions. These are often used on a case-by-case basis, either where complaints come in or where collision history, heavy turning traffic, dual turn lanes, or high pedestrian volumes suggest their use. Advance stop/yield bars and signs appear to have been taken up widely (by close to 90% of both types of jurisdictions), in keeping with evidence that these provide better stopping sight distance at multilane crossings. High-visibility crosswalk markings are also widely used— some jurisdictions use them at all types of crossings, whereas others tend to restrict their use to locations such as those with high pedestrian activity, high-priority intersections, or school-related crossings, or at midblock or uncontrolled locations. Vision Zero policies and Complete Streets design priorities also are affecting treatment selection, with countermeasures and designs deemed to improve pedestrian safety and mobility sometimes being prioritized over those that may prioritize motorized mobility. For example, whereas three-fourths of states and a smaller percentage of local jurisdictions (65%) indicated that they have tried PHBs, San Francisco, a Vision Zero jurisdiction, men- tioned preferring traffic signals to PHBs in its urban environment. Motorist yielding has, however, been uniformly high in evaluations of PHBs, and FHWA considers the device a proven safety treatment with respect to crashes. Eugene, Oregon, and others are some- times shifting to PHBs where flashing warning devices including RRFBs might previously

4 have been applied. Three-fourths of the states and 82% of the local jurisdictions have used RRFBs, with some jurisdictions having used them often. Different jurisdictions also report different experiences and degrees of success with these treatments. For example, some jurisdictions are reporting significant use and success from applying RRFB devices where they might have used more traditional overhead and side- mounted flashing beacons in the past, including on multilane roads with higher speeds (40 mph and faster). Others restrict the use of RRFBs to lower-speed roads. Both RRFBs and PHBs are sometimes being used on multilane roads, at school crossings, and in other areas with significant pedestrian demand. There is also a trend away from using in-pavement flashing crosswalk lights and traditional flashing beacons, with some jurisdictions shifting to RRFBs instead. Warrant guidelines may also affect treatment selection because warrants do not have to be met for RRFBs. Different treatment outcomes likely relate to a variety of factors, including extent and history of use, variations in locations and other treatments, and differences in traffic law enforcement and driving culture, but these factors are not yet well understood. Thus, both policy differences in treatment preferences and effectiveness differences when treatments are implemented in different jurisdictions suggest that there is no one-size-fits-all prioritization or decision matrix that can be universally applied, and engineering judgment remains an important aspect of existing practice. This situation appears to lead to some situations where practitioners are frustrated, believing that pedestrian needs are not being fully addressed under the current policy and practice environment. However, a number of local jurisdictions and some states have begun developing their own guidance that incorpo- rates existing safety research, warrant information, and local experiences and priorities into decision tools to help assess locations, streamline processes, and improve consistency of outcomes when pedestrian needs do come to practitioners’ attention. Several good examples are included in this synthesis report. Ongoing research needs include quantifying crash effects of more pedestrian treatments, identifying the types of crashes most affected by different treatments, quantifying effects of multiple treatments, and helping sort through the contexts where certain treatments and combinations may be most effectively applied. Although some crash effect estimates are available for a number of treatments included in this guide, they are sometimes based on one or only a few studies, and, as mentioned, treatment effects may vary in practice. Jurisdictions also expressed a need for better information and more guidance or tools to help them pro- actively identify safety risks and thresholds for treatment, and for easy-to-apply pedestrian demand estimators to address the frequent lack of count data. Some also expressed a need for other, non-warrant-based decision criteria to help prioritize needs and applications to help address some of the current limitations.

5 National, state, and local policies also guide priorities and decision processes. Complete Streets policies and other volun- tary policies are being increasingly adopted. Complete Streets are intended to ensure that streets are designed to provide safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motorists, regardless of age or ability. According to the National Complete Streets Coalition, more than 700 jurisdictions across the United States have adopted Complete Streets policies (Smart Growth America 2015). Furthermore, a majority of states are Toward Zero Deaths (TZD) states, and a growing number of local jurisdictions have committed to Vision Zero. Vision Zero considers that transportation system designers and users (including all parts of network design and operations, vehicles, users, and other safety stakeholders) have an ethical obligation to minimize the possibility of people dying as a result of traveling on the nations’ streets and highways. According to the Vision Zero Network, at least 17 cities have adopted Vision Zero plans or strategies (Vision Zero Network 2016). There is more information on Vision Zero and other policy contexts in chapter two and in case examples in chapter five. These policy frameworks may alter usual decision processes according to jurisdictions, especially local jurisdictions, that provided information for this synthesis. At the same time as these ambitious goals are being devel- oped, there is a need for more information about the potential crash and injury effects of different treatments in varied land use and roadway contexts. The ability to identify crash risk relationships is also evolving but is still limited by the data typically available and what is measured in terms of risks and potential countermeasures effects. Availability and cost of appropriate treatments may also affect the prioritization of which locations will be treated and whether treatments will be sufficient. National and state guidelines and traffic control device warrants for pedestrian volumes, numbers of crashes, and other factors must also be taken into consideration for some treatments, but may be difficult to apply owing to a lack of available data. There is often a lack of data about where pedestrians are walking or estimates of pedestrian demand. Data on facilities locations or need, barriers to crossing, and other relevant conditions may also be unavailable. Balancing the goals of improving safety and mobility for pedestrians as well as other road users, providing access for CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Applications of treatments to improve pedestrian safety and mobility in the United States are in a state of growth and change. Increasing national, state, and local priorities to extend the opportunity to walk and increase the amounts of walking by people of all ages and abilities generate an even greater need to improve safety for pedestrians. These priorities, and for some jurisdictions, other goals related to livability, energy use, and sustainability of street networks, also affect the priorities and types of facilities provided. Treatments that help provide safe access to all destina- tions as well as meet pedestrians’ or would-be pedestrians’ expectation of a safe crossing can eliminate potential barri- ers to walking. New and modified designs and traffic con- trol countermeasures are continually emerging, but there is a research and learning curve on where and when different designs and treatments are most effective, if at all effective. Because safety and perceptions of safety are also key influ- ences affecting the choice to walk, applications of treatments must also consider human responses, including responses of drivers. As described in TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Cross- ings, people may not walk if there are poor facilities or lack of sidewalks, a lack of a contiguous system of facilities (a connected network), concerns for personal safety, a lack of facilities connecting common origins and destinations, or poor lighting (Fitzpatrick et al. 2006a). Other considerations are pedestrian delay and comfort, sufficient space for pedes- trian flows, and facilities and crossings that are accessible by all types and ages of people, including those with dis- abilities. Draft Proposed Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right-of-Way (PROWAG) promote full acces- sibility for persons with disabilities in the public rights of way. Once the proposed or modified guidelines are adopted, compliance with the standards will become mandatory (United States Access Board n.d.). At the same time, many people prefer to walk (or cycle), do not own a car, or are unable to drive. According to data from the 2009 National Household Travel Survey, 8.7% of households had no motor vehicles available for travel, up from 8.1% in 2001 (Santos et al. 2011). Equitable access to jobs, schools, shopping to meet household needs, and recreation for these individuals is dependent on their being able to safely walk or bicycle to destinations or to transit stops.

6 all, and doing so cost effectively and efficiently, all using a performance-based and transparent decision framework, are among the current challenges for states and local juris- dictions in the face of the previously mentioned and other concerns. Understanding the various policies, guidance documents, and philosophical frameworks used to shape applications of pedestrian crossing treatments by jurisdic- tions is therefore also key to understanding the state of cur- rent practice and measures of success. STUDY PURPOSE Given the wide variety of policy issues, priorities, and objec- tives for providing for the safety, mobility, and access for pedestrians, it is not surprising that a variety of practices currently exist with regard to application of pedestrian cross- ing treatments. Jurisdictions also differ with respect to geo- graphic characteristics, including extent of urbanization, topography, miles and types of road network managed, net- work histories, data, and staff resources. Evidence from various applications of newer and experi- mental traffic control devices in different jurisdictions is also constantly emerging, yet detailed answers of effectiveness and effective practices may still be unavailable for some treatments. The purpose of this synthesis is to identify pedestrian crossing treatments being used in different places through- out the United States, and what policies and processes are used to select and prioritize treatments and treatment loca- tions. This synthesis study is intended to • Compile guidance and practices being used to priori- tize treatments, including policies and related goals, • Identify what is known about the intended and cur- rent uses and effects on pedestrian safety and mobility of various designs and devices that are being used to improve pedestrian crossings, • Highlight examples of effective practices from around the country through case examples, and • Identify gaps in knowledge and needs that state and local agencies have for further research, as well as improved information and tools that may be useful for decision making. It is not the intent of the synthesis to create new guidance, although the synthesis of ideas being used, countermeasures evidence, case examples, and other resources should be valu- able to help agencies that wish to improve their own practices. STUDY APPROACH The study encompasses a comprehensive literature synthesis and a survey that targeted all 50 state highway/transporta- tion agencies and a select set of local (municipal and county) agencies. The next two sections summarize the literature review approach and the survey approach. Literature Review A comprehensive literature review of 25 pedestrian cross- ing treatments was undertaken (described in the next section about the survey) that identified and reviewed research and the current recommended practice guides to highlight in this synthesis, and identified and reviewed other key policies and practices that affect decision making. For the review and assessment of countermeasures evi- dence, a recent comprehensive pedestrian research synthesis from the United States and abroad, Evaluation of Pedes- trian-Related Roadway Measures: A Summary of Available Research, which covered research up to March 2014, was extensively relied on (Mead et al. 2014; available at http:/ www.pedbikeinfo.org/data/library/details.cfm?id=4872), along with other relevant synthesis reports. This informa- tion was updated by conducting a thorough search for recent evaluations of pedestrian crossing treatments and counter- measures, focusing on the select group of treatments men- tioned in the survey section, but also searching for terms that would capture all types of crossing treatment safety stud- ies. International evidence was included, if articles were in English and were identified through the searched databases listed here. In addition, information developed for an inter- national assessment that is documented in an FHWA report on Delivering Safe, Comfortable, and Connected Pedestrian and Bicycle Networks: A Review of International Practices (Thomas et al. 2015a) was used. The following databases were searched for research reports and articles, guides, and policy documents on deter- mining and selecting appropriate pedestrian crossing safety improvements published between January 2014 and March 2015, and later for comprehensive guidance documents: • National Transportation Library • TRB’s Transport Research International Documentation database • Web of Science • TRB abstracts of presentations at the 2015 TRB Annual Meeting • Other conference proceedings during the period from January 2014 to March 2015. Comprehensive search terms and a few specific terms were used to capture studies pertaining to treatment evalu- ations or studies on any type of controlled or uncontrolled crossing. The study titles and abstracts were screened and relevant studies were reviewed. In this case, original stud- ies were consulted when these had not already been sum- marized for earlier reports cited in this synthesis, or if

7 additional information was needed. The effects of specific treatments were summarized for each countermeasure evaluation study, including study details, treatment loca- tion descriptions (when available), measures of effect, and study findings. Peer-reviewed research that is published by government agencies or in peer-reviewed journals or confer- ences was focused on, because such evidence is most valu- able for assessing generalizable treatment effects. In addition, key guidance documents, including PED- SAFE, NCHRP reports, and pedestrian facility design guides by AASHTO, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and others, were identified and used to describe the current recommended state of practice regard- ing treatment applications. The literature review did not cover general pedestrian or pedestrian safety plans or transporta- tion plans, although these may touch on the relevant topics. In addition, key policies to include in the synthesis were identified. This was done based on survey responses, and through follow-up targeted website searches of key agencies and organizations such as FHWA, AASHTO, NACTO, and other policy organizations to document information about current policies. Survey The second focus of the study is a survey that targeted trans- portation agencies responsible for streets and highways in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and a select number of city and county jurisdictions. In all, 40 states, including the Dis- trict of Columbia, responded to the request for information. However, only 37 states provided detailed information in response to the questionnaire. The other states indicated that they did not have time to respond (one state), or did not have many practices in place with respect to pedestrian crossing improvements (two states). In addition to large metropolitan areas that may be lead- ing the way in pedestrian safety processes, cities and coun- ties targeted by the survey were selected on the basis of study team and panel knowledge of relevant experiences in implementing treatments to improve safety at pedestrian crossings. Efforts were also made to gather input to repre- sent agencies of different sizes and from geographic regions across the United States. The initial target group included 39 city and county jurisdictions. A few more were recruited in response to additional information obtained from states. In total, 19 local jurisdictions, nearly half of those recruited, provided responses to the questionnaire. The survey was intended to gather information about cur- rent policies, practices, and research needs with regard to identifying locations and selecting and applying pedestrian safety crossing improvements. An Internet questionnaire was developed, tested, and used for these purposes. Survey Process The pedestrian coordinators or equivalent were initially con- tacted by e-mail for all 50 states and Washington, D.C., and the select local jurisdictions to request their assistance with obtaining a survey response for their state or local jurisdiction. The e-mail described the purpose of the survey and provided a unique link to the Internet-based questionnaire. The description of the survey indicated that multiple people might be needed to complete the survey and that it was possible for different people to enter data into the online questionnaire before submittal. A follow-up request was sent to state representatives to the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways, Subcom- mittee on Safety Management for those states that did not respond to the initial or follow-up requests. Survey Content As already mentioned, the survey was intended to capture information about overarching policies, guidance, and rec- ommended practices that agencies are using to prioritize crossing improvements, as well as information on if and how the treatments of interest are currently being implemented. The first part of the survey asked about • General pedestrian policies or guidance documents used by the jurisdictions (federal/national, state, and local guides used), • How locations needing improvement are identified, • How treatments are selected, and • What other types of resources are needed to assist with these processes. The second part of the questionnaire asked agencies specifically about their use of different design and traffic control measures to improve crossings for pedestrians. In particular, the survey asked about the situations or location types where or when each treatment is typically used, and if there are other treatments typically used in conjunction with the treatment in question. In addition, the questionnaire asked whether the treatments had been evaluated (by or for the responding jurisdiction). The questionnaire is provided in Appendix A Survey Questionnaire and Summary of Sur- vey responses. Although it is desirable in such a survey to have quantifi- able answers, there were other considerations in developing the questionnaire for this effort. Because of the large num- ber of treatments under consideration in the present synthe- sis, and the diversity of decision criteria or location types where such treatments might be applied, an open-ended approach was used to obtain some types of information. This approach makes it more difficult to quantify similarities and differences in practices, but it also captured the diversity of approaches or primary considerations that jurisdictions have

8 in applying treatments, and allowed for detailed responses by jurisdictions, which provided useful information. The final list of treatments addressed in the questionnaire included 11 design or infrastructure measures and 14 types of traffic control applications (e.g., beacons, signs, signals, and markings) as follows: Infrastructure and Design Features • Raised median with crossing • Pedestrian median crossing island • Raised crosswalk or speed table • Curb extension/bulb-out • Reduced corner radius • Road diet • Narrow lane width • Pedestrian overpass/bridge • Pedestrian underpass/tunnel • Corridorwide speed calming • Enhanced illumination at pedestrian crossings. Traffic Control Devices • High-visibility crosswalk markings • Advance stop/yield bars and signs • Traffic signal without pedestrian countdown signal • Traffic signal with pedestrian countdown signal • Pedestrian hybrid beacon [PHB; formerly called high- intensity activated cross walk (HAWK) signal] • Rectangular rapid flash beacon (RRFB) • Overhead or roadside-mounted flashing beacon • Pedestrian-only crossing phase/pedestrian scramble • Leading pedestrian interval to pedestrian walk phase (traffic signal) • Right turn on red restrictions • In-roadway “Yield to Pedestrians” signs • Pedestrian warning signs • Parking restrictions • In-pavement flashing lights (associated with crosswalks). The questionnaire also asked jurisdictions to provide links or information about state or local guidelines, coun- termeasure selection guides, or evaluation studies for any of the crossing treatments they had implemented locally. The results were analyzed and current practices summarized from the survey by state and local jurisdictions. CONTENT, ORGANIZATION, AND USE OF THIS REPORT This report focuses on policies and prioritization and coun- termeasure selection practices, and on 25 specific crossing treatments that are widely used to help improve safety for pedestrians at intersections with signal or stop controls, at uncontrolled intersection approaches, or at midblock con- trolled or uncontrolled crosswalks. The report provides a synthesis of countermeasures safety evidence that could be useful to practitioners, as well as an overview of policy guid- ance and current recommended practice guidance resulting from research. The report also serves as a valuable reference resource to existing guidance and safety studies. Although the study identified crossing treatments being used at any type of location, the study did not focus in detail on roundabouts (at the panel’s request) nor on other specialized crossings, such as at single-point urban interchanges or free- way interchange ramps, unless evaluations of the treatments included in the study were undertaken at such specialized locations. Although no particular peer-reviewed evaluation studies were identified, a few state-of-practice reports have emerged that are described in chapter three. Many of the treatments and effective practices discussed in this report are also applicable to those types of junctions, but as yet, there is not much research evidence available for those specific types of locations. There may also be other specialized treatments and considerations that are uniquely applicable to those loca- tions and that were outside the scope of this study. The summary provides an overview of the synthesis study approach, the practices, and key findings regarding provision of safe pedestrian crossings, as well as ongoing research needs. Chapter two provides a summary of policies that may affect how jurisdictions prioritize pedestrian safety crossing improvements. Chapter three summarizes current knowledge resources and practices regarding identifyng locations and selecting appropriate improvements. Chapter four sumarizes 25 specific design treatments and traffic control countermeasures and how states and a select group of local jurisdictions are using these treatments. Chapter five provides six new case examples of effective practices being applied by jurisdictions and replicates four case studies from other sources. The chapter also provides several good examples of treatment application guidance that have been developed by state and local agencies. It should be noted that many other jurisdictions have or are developing their own guidance documents, but not all could be represented in detail this report. Call-out references to some of the other notable practices are, however, distrib- uted throughout the report at appropriate locations. Chapter six provides a summary of the findings, includ- ing an overview of countermeasures effectiveness, and a summary of other practices, as well as highlights needs for future research or resource development.