Share:


Pedestrian quality of service at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions: towards quantitative approach

Abstract

Safety, comfort, convenience and minimal delay are essential for pedestrians at mid-block crosswalk locations. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the quality of crosswalk with these qualitative parameters. In this study, qualitative parameters such as safety, crossing opportunities (available time gaps) and delay index values are considered as a single measure of effectiveness as a Pedestrian Crossing Index (PCI) for evaluation of Quality Of Service (QOS) at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions. Further, the study is aimed at identifying the factors contributing to the pedestrian QOS. In order to achieve these objectives, field surveys were conducted at eight different unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations to collect pedestrian individual (age and gender), behavioural, traffic and roadway characteristics. An ordered probit model has been developed to find out the significant factors contributing to the pedestrian QOS by taking QOS as the dependent variable and other collected variables as independent variables. The model results show that several factors have significant effect on pedestrian QOS and out of these, factors such as rolling behaviour, speed change behaviour of pedestrian, vehicle speed, number of lanes and number of vehicle encountered were identified as the primary factors affecting pedestrian QOS at unprotected midblock crosswalk locations. The developed model may be useful for design and evaluation of the existing pedestrian QOS at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions.


First published online 04 May 2016

Keyword : pedestrian, quality of service, safety, mid-block, behaviour, gap, ordered probit

How to Cite
Kadali, B. R., & Vedagiri, P. (2018). Pedestrian quality of service at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions: towards quantitative approach. Transport, 33(2), 302–314. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1183227
Published in Issue
Jan 26, 2018
Abstract Views
1333
PDF Downloads
1116
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Baltes, M. R.; Chu, X. 2002. Pedestrian level of service for midblock street crossings, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1818: 125– 133. http://doi.org/10.3141/1818-19

Bian, Y.; Jian, L.; Zhao, L. 2013. Method to determine pedestrians level of service for unsignalized intersections, Applied Mechanics and Materials 253–255: 1936–1943. http://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.253-255.1936

Brewer, M. A.; Fitzpatrick, K.; Whitacre, J.; Lord, D. 2006. Exploration of pedestrian gap-acceptance behavior at selected locations, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1982: 132–140. http://doi.org/10.3141/1982-18

Chang, K. 2004. Multiattribute Weighting Models for Best-Value Selection in Public Sector Design-Build Projects: PhD Thesis. University of Colorado Boulder, United States. 267 p.

Chu, X.; Baltes, M. 2003. Measuring pedestrian quality of service for midblock street crossings: selection of potential determinants, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1828: 89–97. http://doi.org/10.3141/1828-11

Diogenes, M.; Lindau, L. 2010. Evaluation of pedestrian safety at midblock crossings, Porto Alegre, Brazil, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2193: 37–43. http://doi.org/10.3141/2193-05

Dissanayake, D.; Aryaija, J.; Wedagama, D. M. P. 2009. Modelling the effects of land use and temporal factors on child pedestrian casualties, Accident Analysis & Prevention 41(5): 1016–1024. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.06.015 313

Faria, J.; Krause, S.; Krause, J. 2010. Collective behavior in road crossing pedestrians: the role of social information, Behavioral Ecology 21(6): 1236–1242. http://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/arq141

Gårder, P. E. 2004. The impact of speed and other variables on pedestrian safety in Maine, Accident Analysis & Prevention 36(4): 533–542. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00059-9

Greene, W. H.; Hensher, D. A. 2010. Modeling Ordered Choices: a Primer. Cambridge University Press. 382 p.

Hamed, M. M. 2001. Analysis of pedestrians’ behavior at pedestrian crossings, Safety Science 38(1): 63–82. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8

Harkey, D. L.; Reinfurt, D. W.; Knuiman, M.; Stewart, J. R.; Sorton, A. 1998. Development of the Bicycle Compatibility Index: a Level of Service Concept. Final Report No. FHWARD-98-072. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 116 p. Available from Internet: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tools/docs/bcifinalrpt.pdf

Hauer, E.; Gårder, P. 1986. Research into the validity of the traffic conflicts technique, Accident Analysis & Prevention 18(6): 471–481. http://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(86)90020-5

Havard, C.; Willis, A. 2012. Effects of installing a marked crosswalk on road crossing behaviour and perceptions of the environment, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 15(3): 249–260. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2011.12.007

Highway Capacity Manual. 2010. Transportation Research Board. 5th edition. 1650 p.

Iravani, H.; Mirhoseini, A.; Rasoolzadeh. M. 2011. Defining land use intensity based on roadway level of service targets, Journal of Transport and Land Use 4(1): 59–69.

Ishaque, M. M.; Noland, R. B. 2008. Behavioural issues in pedestrian speed choice and street crossing behaviour: a review, Transport Reviews 28(1): 61–85. http://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701365239

Jain, A.; Gupta, A.; Rastogi, R. 2014. Pedestrian crossing behaviour analysis at intersections, International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering 4(1): 103–116. http://doi.org/10.7708/ijtte.2014.4(1).08

Jensen, S. U. 2013. Pedestrian and bicycle level of service at intersections, roundabouts, and other crossings, in TRB 92nd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 13–17 January 2013, Washington, DC, 1–19.

Kadali, B. R.; Vedagiri, P. 2015. Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of landuse, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 73: 113–124. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.009

Kadali, B. R.; Vedagiri, P. 2013. Modelling pedestrian road crossing behaviour under mixed traffic condition, European Transport – Trasporti Europei 55(3): 1–17.
Khattak, A. J.; Koppelman, F. S.; Schofer, J. L. 1993. Stated preferences for investigating commuters’ diversion propensity, Transportation 20(2): 107–127. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF01307055

Khisty, C. J. 1994. Evaluation of pedestrian facilities: beyond the level-of-service concept, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1438: 45–50.

Knoblauch, R. L.; Nitzburg, M.; Seifert, R. F. 2001. Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies: Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota. Report No. FHWA-RD-00-103. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 52 p. Available from Internet: http://www. fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/00103/00103.pdf

Lasmini, A.; Indriastuti, A. K. 2010. Optimization of safe pedestrian facilities and traffic management, a case study of Malang, Indonesia, Journal of Economics and Engineering 1(4): 8–14.

Leather, J.; Fabian, H.; Gota, S.; Mejia, A. 2011. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities: State and Issues. ADB Sustainable Development Working Paper Series. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines. 78 p. Available from Internet: http://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28679/adb-wp17-walkability-pedestrian-facilitiesasian-cities.pdf

Lobjois, R.; Cavallo, V. 2009. The effects of aging on streetcrossing behavior: from estimation to actual crossing, Accident Analysis & Prevention 41(2): 259–267. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.12.001

Meurs, H.; Van Wee, B. 2003. Land use and mobility: a synthesis of findings and policy implications, European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research 3(2): 219–233.

Milazzo J.; Rouphail, N.; Hummer, J.; Allen, D. 1999. Quality of service for interrupted-flow pedestrian facilities in Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1678: 25–31. http://doi.org/10.3141/1678-04

Mitman, M.; Ragland, D. 2007. Crosswalk confusion: more evidence why pedestrian and driver knowledge of the vehicle code should not be assumed, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2002: 55–63. http://doi.org/10.3141/2002-07

Mohan, D.; Tsimhoni, O.; Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M. J. 2009. Road safety in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Transport Research Institute, University of Michigan. 62 p. Available from Internet: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/ handle/2027.42/61504

Nagraj, R.; Vedagiri, P. 2013. Modeling pedestrian delay and level of service at signalized intersection crosswalks under mixed traffic conditions, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2394: 70–76. http://doi.org/10.3141/2394-09

Petritsch, T.; Landis, B.; McLeod, P.; Huang, H.; Challa, S.; Guttenplan, M. 2005. Pedestrians: level-of-service model for pedestrians at signalized intersections, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1939: 53–62. http://doi.org/10.3141/1939-07

Ponnaluri, R. V. 2012. Road traffic crashes and risk groups in India: analysis, interpretations, and prevention strategies, IATSS Research 35(2): 104–110. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2011.09.002

Sarkar, S. 1993. Determination of service levels for pedestrians, with European examples, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1405: 35–42.

Sun, D.; Ukkusuri, S. V. S. K.; Benekohal, R. F.; Waller, S. T. 2003. Modeling of motorist–pedestrian interaction at uncontrolled mid-block crosswalks, in TRB 82nd Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers, 12–16 January 2003, Washington, DC, 1–34.

Tulu, G. S.; Washington, S.; King, M. J.; Haque, M. M. 2013. Why are pedestrian crashes so different in developing countries? A review of relevant factors in relation to their impact in Ethiopia, in 36th Australasian Transport Research Forum (ATRF): Transport and the New World City, 2–4 October 2013, QUT Gardens Point, Brisbane, Australia, 1–18. Available from Internet: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/63789

Washington, S. P.; Karlaftis, M. G.; Mannering, F. 2010. Statistical and Econometric Methods for Transportation Data Analysis. 2nd edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC. 544 p.

Wedagama, D. M. P.; Bird, R. N.; Metcalfe, A. V. 2006. The influence of urban land-use on non-motorised transport casualties, Accident Analysis & Prevention 38(6): 1049–1057. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.01.006

Yannis, G.; Papadimitriou, E.; Theofilatos, A. 2013. Pedestrian gap acceptance for mid-block street crossing, Transportation Planning and Technology 36(5): 450–462. http://doi.org/10.1080/03081060.2013.818274

Zegeer, C.; Stewart, J.; Huang, H.; Lagerwey, P. 2001. Safety effects of marked versus unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations: analysis of pedestrian crashes in 30 cities, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1773: 56–68. http://doi.org/10.3141/1773-07