1. Home
  2. RIP
  3. View Record
https://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/events

Placement Options for In-street Pedestrian Crossing Signs (R1-6a)

Currently, pedestrian fatalities in the U.S. are at an all-time high and represent an increasing share of the total traffic fatalities (1). Specifically, in Oregon, pedestrian fatalities increased 57% between 2009 and 2019 (2). An analysis of U.S. pedestrian fatality trends between 1977 to 2016 found that pedestrian fatalities are more common in urban areas on arterial roadways, where vehicles are traveling at higher speeds and drivers fail to yield to pedestrians (3). To achieve a safe transportation system, it is critical to improve pedestrian safety by installing treatments that encourage greater rates of drivers yielding to people walking. One such treatment is the R1-6a in-street pedestrian crossing signs installed in a gateway configuration. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has identified the R1-6a sign as a highly effective, low-cost engineering countermeasure that can be used to improve pedestrian safety in a proactive and systemic manner. A large-scale multi-year study was undertaken by Western Michigan University (WMU) to evaluate factors related to the efficacy of the gateway treatment, determine the long-term effects of permanent installations, and examine configurations that contribute to the effectiveness of the treatment (4). The study found that position of the sign is a critical factor influencing driver yielding behavior (4). Signs placed on the white lane line resulted in higher yielding than signs placed at the edge of the roadway and both these configurations resulted in less yielding than the full gateway configuration (3). Analysis of speed data collected at one site showed that the gateway treatment is associated with large speed reductions even when pedestrians were not present at the crosswalk (4). The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) does not offer support for the installation of the sign in a gateway configuration on an edge line or right-side curb line, nor does it offer support for the use of more than one R1-6a sign at a crosswalk. Recent studies by Western Michigan University (WMU) call these limitations into question. Carefully executed comparisons of MUTCD-compliant installations of the R1-6a signs to the experimental gateway-style installations proposed by WMU are needed to update national, state, and local guidance on these signs. Some examples of MUTCD-compliant and experimental gateway-style application of the R1-6a signs are shown in the images. Current installations of the R1-6a sign in the U.S. where more than one sign is used or where the sign is placed on an edge line or right-side curb are not in compliance with the MUTCD; non-compliant traffic control devices raise liability concerns for road authorities. Safety at many crosswalks might be quickly and inexpensively improved through the installation of multiple R1-6a signs if the MUTCD was updated to support that configuration.

    Language

    • English

    Project

    • Status: Active
    • Contract Numbers:

      SPR 870

    • Sponsor Organizations:

      Federal Highway Administration

      1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
      Washington, DC  United States  20590
    • Managing Organizations:

      Oregon Department of Transportation

      355 Capital St NE MS42
      Salem, Oregon  United States  97301
    • Project Managers:

      Roll, Josh

    • Performing Organizations:

      Portland State University

      P.O. Box 751
      Portland, OR  United States  97207-0751
    • Principal Investigators:

      Kothuri, Sirisha

    • Start Date: 20230101
    • Expected Completion Date: 0
    • Actual Completion Date: 0

    Subject/Index Terms

    Filing Info

    • Accession Number: 01964191
    • Record Type: Research project
    • Source Agency: Oregon Department of Transportation
    • Contract Numbers: SPR 870
    • Files: RIP, STATEDOT
    • Created Date: Aug 28 2025 12:29PM