Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations
|This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information|
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-05-105
Date: July 2006
Federal Highway Administration University Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
PDF Version (779 KB)
PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®
LESSON 11: PEDESTRIAN DESIGN AT INTERSECTIONS
Walkways provide mobility along a linear path. Eventually, people need to cross roads and streets at intersections. These intersections, where the paths of people and vehicles come together, can be the most challenging part of negotiating a pedestrian network. If pedestrians cannot cross the street safely, then mobility is severely limited, access is denied, and walking as a mode of travel is discouraged.
This lesson provides an overview of several design features critical to providing pedestrian access at intersections. Much research has been done on this topic, and several design manuals provide much detail, including the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities, and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, among others.(1,2,3) The major sections of this lesson are as follows:
Text for this lesson was taken from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 1998 report titled Implementing Pedestrian Improvements at the Local Level.(4) It has been reprinted with minor modifications and updates. Other information has been drawn from the ITE publication, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities—A Recommended Practice of ITE.(3)
11.2 Intersection Design Principles
In urban areas, two–thirds of pedestrian injuries occur at central business district (CBD) intersections. A suitable example of such injuries is the intersection dash, in which a pedestrian enters the street at an intersection and is seen too late by the driver of a motor vehicle. This is the third most prevalent pedestrian crash type, accounting for 7.2 percent of all pedestrian crashes.
The solution to such pedestrian crashes at intersections is to design and build intersections that:
A good place to start is to develop design guidelines for intersections that respond to the needs of pedestrians—guidelines that can be followed whenever new intersections are built or when existing intersections are being improved or reconstructed.
Table 11–1 contains important intersection issues and potential solutions:
Table 11–1. Intersection issues for safe pedestrian crossings.
Figure 11–1. Photo. Reduced visibility of pedestrians behind parked cars can create conflict.
Improving intersections for pedestrians involves the coordination and integration of a number of design elements, including crosswalks, curb ramps, curb extensions, turning radii, and signalization. Some other important considerations when designing intersections include:
Of the 61 different pedestrian crash types, the midblock dart–out type—where a pedestrian may suddenly appear between parked cars or otherwise cross a vehicular way at a random location—accounts for 13.3 percent of all pedestrian crashes. In three–quarters of these cases, the crash occurs in the curbside lane. One–third of midblock dart–outs result in serious injury or fatality.
One solution is to create an ongoing retrofit program to establish crosswalks in locations that encourage pedestrians to cross in specific locations and that also provide motorists with a reasonable expectation of where pedestrians might cross a roadway. Crosswalks are one tool that municipalities can use to accomplish both goals. Other tools include curb extensions and medians (discussed later in this lesson).
Important crosswalk concepts and issues include:
Resources and Scheduling
Crosswalks are relatively inexpensive to install. Obtaining authorization to install them, on the other hand, could take months or longer.
An informal traffic study can determine if the crosswalk program is enhancing pedestrian safety. Especially monitor locations of high pedestrian use. Review crash statistics on a regular basis.
Planning and Design Considerations
When planning and designing crosswalks, consider these recommendations:
11.4 Curb Ramps
Curb ramps at intersections are an important design feature which should be considered. Refer to lesson 8.6, “Design Requirements,” or lesson 9.3, “Basic Sidewalk Elements,” for more information about curb ramps.
The absence of curb ramps prevents many wheelchair users from crossing streets. Such a deficiency is common in many communities. Even if ramps are provided, they may be poorly designed. Typical problems include:
When new public walkways are built, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires a curb ramp at each curbed street crossing. Ramps must also be added when roadways are repaired. A Pennsylvania court interpreted this requirement very broadly to include annual street resurfacing programs.(7) ADA also requires that curb ramps be installed in new development, annual programs, and capital projects. A transition plan should show how a community will systematically install curb ramps, especially at key locations like social service agencies and transit stops.
The solution is to install curb ramps using ADA design guidelines. Curb ramps should be installed along with all new walkways. A program to retrofit existing walkways with curb ramps should be developed. Existing curb ramps should be inspected and replaced if they do not meet ADA guidelines.
Having curb ramps installed at all intersections with sidewalks requires a clear, well–planned strategy that may require a period of several years to fully implement. Here are three keys to a successful implementation.
Resources and Scheduling
Curb ramps typically cost between $500 and $1,000 each. Usually, it is cheaper to install a large number at the same time or as part of other concrete work. Timely ramp installation is a key part of an overall pedestrian program. Frequently, curb ramps can be installed easily and quickly, giving communities highly visible products that can improve locations all over town. With this in mind, it is preferable to design a curb ramp program to respond to citizen requests within six months. Where narrow sidewalks and limited rights–of–way exist, installation of curb ramps may take longer. In either case, consider using a public request card like the one shown above in figure 11–3 to bring curb ramp requests to the attention of the street or public works department. The city of Seattle, WA has developed an excellent program in this regard.
Check to see if ramps are being built as required and designed. In the case of new developments, do occasional checkups to see if ramps are included in new plans. The same goes for annual programs. Seek out feedback on the location and design of ramps from local organizations that include wheelchair users.
Planning and Design Considerations
Important planning and design considerations for curb ramps include:
Refer to lesson 8.6, “Design Requirements,” or lesson 9.3, “Basic Sidewalk Elements,” for figures and further curb ramp design information.
11.5 Crossing and Detection Technology
In some cases, simply installing a crosswalk is not enough to ensure pedestrian safety at a crossing. Therefore, several other treatments may be used in conjunction with crosswalks to improve safety and provide greater visibility of pedestrians to motorists.
Many possible solutions have already been discussed in previous chapters relating to walkways and crosswalks:
As adapted from an Informational Report by an ITE Pedestrian and Bicycle Council Task Force Committee,(8) the following list offers a few more crossing and detection technologies that could be employed at or before intersections to provide solutions for safer pedestrian crossings:
11.6 Pedestrian Signal Heads and Half–Signals
Pedestrians often have trouble crossing at unsignalized intersections along arterials. This is especially true for the elderly, whose eyesight and mobility may be poor, and for children, whose judgment may be questionable. And, while most motorists may be required to stop and yield to crossing pedestrians, few arterial street drivers will stop unless forced by, for example, traffic signals.
Traffic control signals are usually placed at intersections when they meet certain warrants. In the 2003 edition of MUTCD, section 4C.05 describes the Pedestrian Volume Signal Warrant, which states that:
The need for a traffic control signal at an intersection or midblock crossing shall be considered if an engineering study finds that both of the following criteria are met:
In general, when the Pedestrian Volume Signal Warrant is met and a new traffic control signal is installed, pedestrian signal heads are installed along with the signal. Often, jurisdictions create their own policies for when to install pedestrian signal heads. Rather than follow the MUTCD standards (or in addition to following the standards), they may rely on other design features already in place in order to determine the need for a pedestrian signal head. For instance, a community may decide to install pedestrian signal heads at all locations with intersection curb ramps. Or they may have a policy that any new traffic signal installation will automatically include pedestrian signal heads.
Where traffic volumes are high and pedestrian crossings frequent, the lack of signalized crossings makes pedestrians impatient. The result: jaywalking, unpredictable movements, and ultimately more pedestrian–traffic crashes. Yet if the intersecting side street is lightly traveled, it makes little sense to install a full traffic signal for vehicles.
The solution is to install a pedestrian half–signal (see figure 11–9). A half–signal is a pedestrian actuated light that stops arterial traffic only, leaving the lower volume cross street unsignalized and controlled by Stop signs only. This allows pedestrians to cross safely upon demand without unnecessarily creating delays upon arterial street traffic that a fully signalized intersection might impose.
Figure 11–9. Photo. Half–signal in Portland, OR.
While a full signal might be an option, costs could easily be prohibitive. A fully signalized intersection can cost twice as much as a half–signal. If a signal on the residential street is unnecessary, the pedestrian half–signal can be an answer.
Another way to accommodate pedestrians without unnecessarily impeding arterial traffic is to tie in a half–signal with full signals on either side. In this scenario, after a pedestrian pushes the call button, the WALK signal is displayed when it is tied in with the progression of adjacent signals. This method may be more attractive to transportation engineers who don’t want to impede traffic.
Section 7 of the ITE Informational Report summarizes the use of different signals installed for pedestrian crossings.(8) Pedestrian signals can be applied to intersections where the pedestrian crossing is signalized but the intersection side street approaches are controlled by Stop signs. However, most applications of pedestrian signals in the United States are at midblock locations. These will be discussed in lesson 12.
Here are a few ways for implementing pedestrian half–signals into an overall pedestrian program:
Resources and Scheduling
Pedestrian half–signals cost anywhere from one quarter to one half of a full intersection signalization, depending upon the intersection. Because they are costly, it may not be feasible to install more than a few each year.
In many respects, it is easy to evaluate the success of a pedestrian half–signal. If the number of crashes and/or pedestrian complaints goes down, then it’s a success. If the arterial has high volumes, study traffic impacts such as the frequency of motorist delays. If frequent red phases cause delays, consider lengthening the green phase a bit. To strike the right balance, observe the intersection throughout the day and, if necessary, vary the timing.
Planning and Design Considerations
Regardless of which implementation strategy is chosen, the objective conditions which warrant the use of a half–signal will have to be determined. In all likelihood, the public works department has warrants that must be met before installing a traffic signal. Most jurisdictions use MUTCD to determine signal warrants, whether the signals are to be installed for vehicular traffic or pedestrians. (It should be noted that pedestrian half–signals have not yet been incorporated in MUTCD). When should the pedestrian half–signal option be chosen over the full signalization option? Here are two useful guidelines:
Because signals and their impacts are often controversial and politically sensitive, creating a flexible warrant may be appropriate, especially given the lack of MUTCD guidelines.
11.7 Curb Extensions and Curb Radii
Walking across a wide street takes longer than crossing a narrow street. As a result, pedestrians are exposed for a longer period of time to the threat of being hit by a vehicle when they cross a wide street. Another problem pedestrians face when trying to cross a street is visibility. Parked cars may make it difficult for them to see oncoming vehicles and vice versa. Also, when streets intersect at an acute or obtuse angle, or have a large curb radius, motorists can make turns at relatively high speeds. By contrast, 90–degree intersections and corners with tight curb radii tend to slow motorists down. The problem with obtuse angles is particularly bad when a vehicle on an arterial street turns onto a residential street. Pedestrians crossing the residential street adjacent to the arterial may not expect high–speed turning traffic or they may have their backs turned toward the turning cars.
The solution is to shorten the crossing distance for pedestrians. One way to effectively shorten the pedestrian crossing distance on streets where parking is permitted is to install curb extensions, also known as bulb–outs, chokers, neck–downs, or flares. Curb extensions project into the street, usually for a distance equal to the depth of a typical parallel parking space, making it easier for pedestrians to see approaching traffic and giving motorists a better view of pedestrians (see figure 11–10). When motorists are better able to see pedestrians, they have a greater opportunity to stop before a crash can occur.
Decreasing crossing distances for pedestrians also provides these motor vehicle capacity benefits:
When designing curb extensions at intersections where there is low truck traffic, consider making the corner radius as small as possible. This will have the effect of slowing down right–turning motor vehicles. Where truck traffic is present, a tight corner radius may make the turn difficult to negotiate for these vehicles. Furthermore, the constant overriding of the curb and sidewalk by rear wheels of trucks may ultimately cause damage to the curb or sidewalk or cause injury to pedestrians.
Figure 11–10. Photos. Curb extensions reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and provide additional corner storage space.
Simultaneously installing curb extensions and changing curb radii is frequently possible since both involve moving the curb and gutter into the improved portion of the street right–of–way. Adding bollards to make the corner more visible may be an alternative solution.
Where acute or obtuse intersections are encountered, such as where a residential street meets an arterial, creating an intersection that is closer to 90 degrees may also provide opportunities to reduce curb radii and create curb extensions (see figure 11–11).
Figure 11–11. Illustration. Curb extensions improve the visibility of pedestrians by motorists and vice versa.
Typically, curb extensions and curb radius changes are appropriate at a limited number of intersections. Consequently, over time, most intersections that need improvements may be upgraded for pedestrians in this fashion. As with other pedestrian improvements, the key is to develop a strategy and stick to it over a period of years. Here’s how to get started:
Resources and Scheduling
The cost of installing curb extensions and changing curb radii can vary considerably, depending on whether drain grates have to be moved and/or whether other issues must be addressed. For example, it may be necessary to move the conduit for a signal or relocate utility poles and light and/or sign standards.
Decide if the work is to be done by the public works department or a private contractor. In general, if only a few curb extensions are involved, it may be less expensive and faster to have town or city crews do the work. If there is a lot of work to be done, it may be less expensive to use a private contractor. The key is to let the public know how long it will take to install a curb extension and then deliver promptly.
Visit project sites to determine if good locations have been selected and the best design(s) is being used. Check crash records, do speed studies of cars making turns, look at the curbs to see if trucks or buses are driving over them, and ask pedestrians if they feel safer. Be a good listener and observer, and make modifications where needed.
Planning and Design Considerations
Transportation agencies have increased curb radii over the years to keep trucks and buses from running over curbs and striking pedestrians standing on the corner; such changes also increase capacity. Unfortunately, curb radii have been increased at intersections that do not have large truck traffic or buses (e.g., in residential neighborhoods). The following are guidelines for curb extensions and small curb radii:
11.8 Signal Timing and Pushbuttons
The public is often baffled by pedestrian signal timing and pushbuttons; such pedestrian features seem to vary not only from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but also from intersection to intersection. WALK/DON’T WALK timing lengths often appear arbitrary—especially the WALK and flashing DON’T WALK phases. Part of the problem stems from the fact that many walkers do not know that the flashing DON’T WALK is intentionally displayed before an average person can completely cross the street. Another part of the problem may result from timing cycles that are simply too fast for slow walkers such as older pedestrians or persons with disabilities.
Another aspect of the problem may be due to the absence of pedestrian pushbuttons or because a call button is obscured or difficult to reach (see figure 11–12). At many intersections that do have pushbuttons, the DON’T WALK phase is so long that pedestrians feel their pushbutton request has not been recognized by the signal system. All of these problems encourage disrespect for pedestrian signals, promote increased jaywalking, and create conflicts with motorists.
Figure 11–12. Photo. Example of obscure pedestrian pushbuttons; pushbuttons should be conveniently placed and clear from obstacles.
Develop policies governing pedestrian signal timing and pushbutton actuation to ensure fair treatment for pedestrians. Make signal timing as consistent as possible, and adopt a clear pedestrian pushbutton warrant. Develop a desired level of service (LOS) for pedestrian waiting and pushbutton response times and evaluate signalized intersections to see if the pedestrian LOS at signalized intersection falls within an acceptable range.
Major issues related to pedestrians and signalized intersections include:
Making signalized intersections consistent with stated policies won’t happen overnight; consider it as part of a long–term commitment to pedestrian safety. Whatever strategy is employed, use field observations to see how pedestrians react to signal timing and pushbuttons. Comparing a variety of configurations will help. It is possible for workable and consistent policies to be developed.
Resources and Scheduling
The peculiarities of many intersections mean that a strictly policy–driven approach may not be possible. As a result, trained personnel will be needed to evaluate signal timing and actuation at many specific locations. Most of the work will be done by agency crews unless there is a large enough backlog to justify going out to bid.
Monitor intersections with modified signal timing and pushbuttons, and compare them with unaltered intersections. Crash reductions and/or fewer pedestrian complaints will be good indicators of whether the new policies are working. Develop an LOS for pedestrian pushbuttons and apply accordingly.
Planning and Design Considerations
Consider these features when providing signals that are responsive to pedestrians:
MUTCD has many suggestions regarding pushbutton placement and pedestrian signal timing. In many other areas of pedestrian activity, however, it leaves a great deal to engineering judgment.
Pedestrian Refuge Islands
Pedestrian refuge islands are defined as the areas within an intersection or between lanes of traffic where pedestrians may safely wait until vehicular traffic clears, allowing them to cross a street. Refuge islands are commonly found along wide, multilane streets where adequate pedestrian crossing time could not be provided without adversely affecting the traffic flow. These islands provide a resting area for pedestrians, particularly those who use wheelchairs, elderly, or otherwise unable to completely cross an intersection within the provided signal time. These refuge islands also provide a safety area for pedestrians caught in the street when a signal changes.
When evaluating whether a refuge island is needed, both crossing time and safety must be considered. For example, in suburban areas with long distances between intersections and traffic signals, a large proportion of pedestrian crossings occur at unsignalized intersections and at midblock locations. However, with a median, a pedestrian would only have to look in one direction to cross to the median, and in the opposite direction to complete their crossing from the median to the far side of the street. Pedestrians crossing an undivided, multilane street may experience delays 10 times longer than the delay incurred crossing a street with a median as shown by the pedestrian crossing delay curves provided in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 294A.(9)
The effect of refuge islands and medians (see figure 11–15) on pedestrian safety is unclear. Studies have reported both increases and decreases in crashes after pedestrian islands have been installed. There is a substantial lack of definitive information on this subject. However, a 1978 study in Western Australia indicated that the rate of pedestrian crashes at a four–lane unsignalized intersection was reduced to
Figure 11–15. Photo. Streets with raised medians usually have lower pedestrian crash rates.
Refuge islands can be beneficial under certain conditions and inconsequential or even harmful under others. The typical conditions where refuge islands are most beneficial include:
The typical conditions where refuge islands are least beneficial or possibly harmful include:
In areas where refuge islands are beneficial, the advantages to pedestrians are many, including:
Figure 11–16. Photo. Refuge islands provide pedestrians with a resting place when crossing roads or intersections.
The disadvantages of pedestrian refuge islands include:
Pedestrian refuge islands may be installed at intersections or midblock locations as deemed appropriate by engineering studies. Refuge islands should be considered during the design of complex intersections or streets rather than after construction has been completed. They must be visible to motorists at all times and should be delineated by curbs, guideposts, signs, or other treatments. Refuge islands should be designed to minimize the potential hazard to motorists and pedestrians alike.
Island Design Features
Pedestrian refuge islands should be designed in accordance with AASHTO policy and MUTCD requirements. Design considerations include:
According to the Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide:(11)
A modern roundabout is built with a large, often circular, raised island located at the intersection of an arterial street with one or more crossing roadways and may take the place of a traffic signal. Traffic maneuvers around the circle in a counterclockwise direction, and then turns onto the desired street. All traffic yields to motorists in the roundabout and left–turn movements are eliminated. Unlike a typical intersection, vehicles generally flow and merge through the roundabout from each approaching street without having to stop.
Roundabouts need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists. It is important that automobile traffic yields to pedestrians crossing the roundabout. Splitter islands at the approaches slow vehicles and allow pedestrians to cross one traffic lane at a time. Single‑lane approaches can be designed to keep speeds down to safer levels and allow pedestrians to cross. Multilane approaches have higher speeds, create multiple threats for pedestrians, and are not recommended.
Roundabouts represent a tradeoff for pedestrians (see table 11–2). Roundabouts generally improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.(12) A well–designed roundabout can improve pedestrian safety by:
Compared to two–way stop–controlled intersections, roundabouts may make it easier and safer for most pedestrians to cross the major street.(13) At both roundabouts and two–way stop–controlled intersections, pedestrians have to judge gaps in the major (uncontrolled) stream of traffic. By reducing stopping distance, the low vehicular speeds through a roundabout generally reduce the frequency and severity of incidents involving pedestrians. In addition, when crossing an exit lane on the minor road, one’s sight angle is smaller than when watching for left–turning vehicles at a conventional intersection.(13)
Table 11–2. Roundabout trade–off issues for pedestrians.
Figure 11–17. Illustration. Intersections have 16 vehicle/pedestrian conflict points.
Visually Impaired Pedestrians
The Informational Guide states that:
All–way stop–controlled intersections may be preferred by pedestrians with visual impairment because vehicles are required to stop before they enter the intersection. However, crossing the exit leg of an all–way stop–controlled intersection can be intimidating for a pedestrian since traffic may be turning onto the exit from multiple directions. Roundabouts, on the other hand, allow pedestrians to cross one direction of traffic at a time; however, traffic may be moving (even if at a slow speed), thus making it more challenging to judge gaps, especially for visually impaired users, children, and the elderly.
Elderly pedestrians, children, and pedestrians who have vision loss find it more difficult to cross unprotected road crossings. These pedestrians generally prefer larger gaps in the traffic stream, and walk at slower speeds or start later than other pedestrians. Multilane roadways entering and exiting double–lane roundabouts require additional cues to cross, since pedestrians need assurance that they have been seen by drivers in each lane they are crossing.
When crossing a roundabout, there are several areas of difficulty for the blind and/or visually impaired pedestrian. It is expected that a visually impaired pedestrian with good travel skills must be able to arrive at an unfamiliar intersection and cross it with pre–existing skills and without special, intersection–specific training. Roundabouts pose problems at several points of the crossing experience, from the perspective of information access.
Unless these issues are addressed by a design, the intersection is “inaccessible” and may not be permissible under the ADA. Chapters 5, 6, and 7 [of the Informational Guide] provide specific suggestions to assist in providing the above information. However, more research is required to develop the information jurisdictions need to determine where roundabouts may be appropriate and what design features may be appropriate for the disabled, such as audible signalized crossings. Until specific standards are adopted, engineers and jurisdictions must rely on existing related research and professional judgment to design pedestrian features so that they are usable by pedestrians with disabilities.(13)
Vision impaired pedestrians may have difficulty navigating and identifying appropriate gaps at roundabout crossings because circulating traffic masks the sounds needed to identify a gap in the traffic to make a safe crossing.
Crosswalks at roundabouts can be a tricky design issue. Unlike an intersection, by vehicle code definitions there cannot be a legal unmarked crosswalk at a roundabout. A legal crosswalk at a roundabout must be marked.(11) However, many State guidelines recommend not painting pedestrian crossing lines across the entrances and exits of roundabouts because they could give pedestrians a false sense of security when crossing the roadway. Instead, they recommend encouraging pedestrians to identify gaps in traffic and cross when acceptable gaps are available.
According to the report, Modern Roundabouts for Oregon:
Priority crossing should be considered only where:
Most guidelines recommend the location of a crosswalk at 1 to 2 car lengths from the yield line [or] 6.1 to 10 m (20 to 33 ft). This will reduce decisionmaking problems for drivers and avoid [a] backup queue of vehicles waiting to exit roundabouts.
The ideal solution would be to have all pedestrians follow the path created for them and to have all motorists yield to them. But in moving pedestrians too far from the roundabout, pedestrians will not tolerate the out–of–direction travel created. If the crosswalks are too close to the yield line, motorists will stop on it. Therefore, the best solution is to place the crosswalk behind a stopped car, about 4.0 to 5.0 m (13 to 16.5 ft) from the entry point. This is not an ideal solution, as one cannot force pedestrians to make even this slight a detour, and when a bus or truck is stopped, it will cover the crosswalk.
This position does have the advantage of allowing a pedestrian to cross behind a stopped car waiting to enter. The driver who stops to let a pedestrian cross at an exit lane does so outside of the roundabout, in an area perceived as more comfortable than in the circulating roadway.(12)
The Informational Guide provides the following recommendations for pedestrian crosswalks at roundabouts:
Typically, modern roundabout design includes splitter islands (also called median islands) on each approach to the roundabout that serve as pedestrian refuges. By having space to pause on the splitter island, pedestrians can consider one direction of conflicting traffic at a time, which simplifies the task of crossing the street.(13)
There should be a cut–through in the splitter island with a minimum width of 2.0 m (6.6 ft).(12) If this can’t be accomplished, a raised island as narrow as 0.8 m (2.5 ft) is still preferred over a painted line alone.
Planning and Design Considerations
Some other design considerations for roundabouts include:
Additional research is needed to determine the best way for visually impaired pedestrians to safely cross roundabouts. To this end, NCHRP has funded a significant research effort (Project 3–78) to develop crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision disabilities. NCHRP Project 3–78 was scheduled to begin in late 2004.
11.11 Student Exercise
Develop a plan to install pedestrian signals and related improvements for an intersection in your community. The plan should be developed using nomenclature and reference standards from your State DOT. A list of standard drawings for pedestrian facility construction from California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was previously provided in exercise 10.10. If possible, you should obtain an intersection drawing from your local traffic engineering department. This drawing typically shows the location of existing roadway features, travel lanes, signal equipment, and utilities. In addition to preparing a plan of proposed improvements, develop an estimate of quantities needed for each construction item and prepare an engineer’s construction cost estimate. You will need to utilize the following resources:
11.12 References and Additional Resources
The references for this lesson are:
Additional resources for this lesson include:
Keywords: Bicycling, walking, cyclists, pedestrians, bicycle facilities, pedestrian areas, planning and design, traffic calming