Pedestrian service quality models at un-signalized crossings
R. Sahani, P.K. Bhuyan
Pages: 61-74
Abstract:
In developing countries, many intersections are un-signalized as they do not satisfy the warrant for the signal installation. Due to the heterogeneity in traffic, one cannot cross or merge into the traffic easily. In India situation is more complicated as pedestrian and driver do not follow traffic rules strictly. Considering the Indian scenario, pedestrian crossing behavior using gap acceptance parameters is not that prevailed. In this regards the present study attempted to explore various parameters affecting perceived satisfaction level of crossing pedestrians at un-signalized intersections. Observation shows that satisfaction level of pedestrians significantly depends on volume of motorized and non-motorized vehicles, volume of pedestrians and crossing delay at the intersections. Crossing behaviour of pedestrians was analysed to estimate the critical gaps (the actual gap pedestrian need to cross) by applying equilibrium probability method. To evaluate pedestrian delay at crossings, estimated critical gaps, number of interacting vehicles and crosswalk length are taken into considerations. Using various significant parameters as independent variables and pedestrian real-time perceived satisfaction ratings as the dependent variable Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS) model has been developed. In this study, the PLOS model using ridge regression technique gives more compatible result than other existing models. From the analysis, minimum critical gap of 3.93 seconds shows that pedestrians have to take higher risk when drivers do not give sufficient opportunity to cross. Results indicate that, with delay value of less than 15 seconds, PLOS score ≤1.5 represents PLOS ‘A’ category and delay more than 60 seconds provides score value of >5.5 that represents PLOS ‘F’ category. As the study used a wide range of data and validation shows the significance of the models, therefore, the proposed model has remarkable potential for wide application in defining service levels for un-signalized pedestrian facilities in developing countries having heterogeneous traffic flow condition.
Keywords: un-signalized intersection; critical gap; pedestrian delay; pedestrian Level of Service
2025 ISSUES
2024 ISSUES
LXII - April 2024LXIII - July 2024LXIV - November 2024Special 2024 Vol1Special 2024 Vol2Special 2024 Vol3Special 2024 Vol4
2023 ISSUES
LIX - April 2023LX - July 2023LXI - November 2023Special Issue 2023 Vol1Special Issue 2023 Vol2Special Issue 2023 Vol3
2022 ISSUES
LVI - April 2022LVII - July 2022LVIII - November 2022Special Issue 2022 Vol1Special Issue 2022 Vol2Special Issue 2022 Vol3Special Issue 2022 Vol4
2021 ISSUES
LIII - April 2021LIV - July 2021LV - November 2021Special Issue 2021 Vol1Special Issue 2021 Vol2Special Issue 2021 Vol3
2020 ISSUES
2019 ISSUES
Special Issue 2019 Vol1Special Issue 2019 Vol2Special Issue 2019 Vol3XLIX - November 2019XLVII - April 2019XLVIII - July 2019
2018 ISSUES
Special Issue 2018 Vol1Special Issue 2018 Vol2Special Issue 2018 Vol3XLIV - April 2018XLV - July 2018XLVI - November 2018
2017 ISSUES
Special Issue 2017 Vol1Special Issue 2017 Vol2Special Issue 2017 Vol3XLI - April 2017XLII - July 2017XLIII - November 2017
2016 ISSUES
Special Issue 2016 Vol1Special Issue 2016 Vol2Special Issue 2016 Vol3XL - November 2016XXXIX - July 2016XXXVIII - April 2016
2015 ISSUES
Special Issue 2015 Vol1Special Issue 2015 Vol2XXXV - April 2015XXXVI - July 2015XXXVII - November 2015
2014 ISSUES
Special Issue 2014 Vol1Special Issue 2014 Vol2Special Issue 2014 Vol3XXXII - April 2014XXXIII - July 2014XXXIV - November 2014
2013 ISSUES
2012 ISSUES
2011 ISSUES
2010 ISSUES
2009 ISSUES
2008 ISSUES
2007 ISSUES
2006 ISSUES
2005 ISSUES
2004 ISSUES
2003 ISSUES