Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in an Urban Area (A Critical Evaluation of Factors)

Transcription

1 Level of Service of Facilities in an Urban Area (A Critical Evaluation of Factors) Ankit Bansal*, Tripta Goyal and Umesh Sharma Department of Civil Engineering, Punjab Engineering College [Deemed to be University], Chandigarh, India, *Corresponding Author Abstract. Urbanisation is an imperative tool for the growth and development of any country. It has resulted in the vast expansion of transportation infrastructure due to which the traditional non-motorized modes have lost their significance. Therefore, there is a need to promote the non-motorized modes such as walking and to evaluate the facilities provided for the non-motorized traffic specially pedestrians. Various factors having a great bearing on pedestrian activities play a major role in deciding the Level of Service [LOS] provided by pedestrian facilities. In the present study, an attempt has been made to critically review all the potential determinants and suggest the most influential ones based on the ranking criteria. It has been found that out of several factors reviewed, pedestrian factors highly affect the LOS of uninterrupted pedestrian facilities whereas in case of interrupted pedestrian facilities, traffic characteristics emerged out to be most prompting factor affecting the quality of service. Sociodemographic factors are the least significant factors in deciding the LOS of all pedestrian facilities but all the other factors have high co-relation with these factors. Thus, it is recommended to focus mainly on the most influencing factors for improving the service levels of pedestrian facilities. Keywords: Non-Motorized, s, Factors, Ranking criteria, LOS. 1 Introduction In today s era, the development of cities is possible with the growth of their physical, social and institutional infrastructure along with the development of transport infrastructure for facilitating movements. This in turn has led to rapid motorization which is increasing at an alarming rate. This enormous increase in motorization is meant to improve the standard of living of the people, but it has impacted negatively to both environment and people. Increase in air pollution, social inequality, environmental degradation, risk to safety and health of people etc. are some of the negative impacts of motorization [1]. This arises the need to adopt the safe and efficient mode for transportation i.e. nonmotorized modes. Walking is the most sustainable non-motorized mode of transport. The walking share varies from country to country such as 61 percent of total pedestrian trips have been observed in Beijing [2], 70 percent of all on-farm trips and 50 percent of shopping trips have been made on foot in Australia 416

2 [3]. A study conducted in India has revealed that about 64.7 percent trips have been generally made on foot, 15.8 percent on bicycles, 10.9 percent by public transport, 1.4 percent by private transport, and 0.7 percent by intermediate public transport [4]. About 40 percent of rural households have been found to be totally dependent on walking [5]. Therefore, transportation planners and designers have to provide pedestrians with more pedestrian friendly infrastructure, where vehicular conflicts are minimum and the road user safety is enhanced [6], [7]. safety is a serious traffic safety problem nationwide. Several types of bottlenecks are experienced by a pedestrian in mixed traffic conditions because of presence of nearby pedestrians, parked vehicles, moving vehicles, road side developments, etc. Due to inadequate facilities available for pedestrian movements, there exists a constant conflict between the pedestrian and the vehicles in sharing the limited space available on a road which leads to large number of road accidents involving pedestrians. Road traffic injuries occur more often in the developing nations than the developed nations. The Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015, indicates that among the 180 countries, the total number of road traffic deaths have plateaued at 1.25 million per year. Low and Middle-Income countries (LMICs) approximately accounts for more than 85 percent of all deaths from road traffic injuries worldwide with about 60 percent of pedestrian accidents in urban areas [8], [9]. Hence, it is necessary to evaluate the quality of service of pedestrian facilities and the factors affecting the pedestrian safety, comfort, convenience, etc. The pedestrian facilities are classified into two types: uninterrupted and interrupted. The quality of the pedestrian environment of these facilities has been measured for many years using the LOS approach. Generally, LOS A represents excellent service (free-flow speed for pedestrians with less density at walkways and less delay at signalized crosswalks) whereas, LOS F indicates very poor service (congested conditions with high jam density at walkways and high delay at signalized crosswalks) [10], [11]. The LOS for pedestrian facilities is influenced by many factors and different pedestrians have different perceptions on LOS in terms of safety, comfort and convenience [12]. Therefore, this paper aims at critically reviewing and determining the factors influencing the LOS of pedestrian facilities. 2 Literature Survey The literature survey focuses on the importance of the potential determinants along with new Measures of Effectiveness (MOEs) such as safety, comfort, convenience and crossing difficulty factors that need to be considered for evaluating and modeling LOS of pedestrian facilities. 2.1 LOS of Uninterrupted Facilities Uninterrupted pedestrian facilities are unique because pedestrians do not experience any disruption with the motorized traffic except on shared paths. These facilities include sidewalks, walkways and queueing areas. The design of such facilities should ensure comfortable movement of pedestrians in lane parallel to the vehicular traffic and cater the needs of all users- children, elderly people and disabled people such as people with vision impairments or using wheelchairs or other assistive devices [13], [14], 417

3 [15]. Level of service for pedestrian facilities has been defined on the basis of capacity and pedestrian volume. Factors like personal body shape, type of flow and dimensions of pedestrians have been considered in order to define service levels [16], [17]. Six levels of service, A-F have described operations from best to worst for each type of facility considering pedestrian flow rate, pedestrian speed, and area module (the inverse of pedestrian density) [18]. Researchers have also emphasised on the multimodal LOS concept for non-motorized modes [19], [20] and have determined the impact of pedestrian shared paths with bicycle tracks on pedestrian LOS [21], [22]. In the course of time, the definition of LOS has been evolved and modified many a times so as to incorporate new factors such as freedom to manoeuvre, traffic interruptions, comfort, and convenience [11]. Primarily, some studies have examined the effects of environmental factors, street attractiveness and roadside developments on the service quality of sidewalks [23], [24]. Later on, other design factors such as path width, road surface quality, obstructions, crossing opportunities, connectivity, sidewalk path, vehicle conflicts, pedestrian volume, mix of path users, and security have been used to assess the pedestrian LOS [25]. The pedestrian flow characteristics have also been explored at various facilities such as roadway segments and corridors, a central business district [26], [27], a campus facility [28], at passenger terminal locations near tunnel [29] in order to evaluate the design of facilities in terms of pedestrian speed, flow rate, and density. In addition to this, in certain studies, adjustment factors for selecting the pedestrian speed at sidewalks, wide sidewalks and precincts have been observed on the basis of age, gender, land uses, temporal variations, cell phone usage, carrying baggage while walking, and movement for effective design of pedestrian facilities [30], [31]. Most of the studies have employed simple visual observation technique along with some other approaches like three-dimensional visualization using computer modelling [32], mathematical models [33] and simulation-based pedestrian LOS models [34], [35]. These studies have generally used quantitative approach (pedestrian speed, flow and density) whereas, qualitative factors (comfort, safety, street attractiveness, etc.) have not been given due importance. The literature suggests that the quantitative approach alone for evaluating the LOS is insufficient for finding the appropriate results [36] and the qualitative factors also contribute significantly in analysis of pedestrian LOS [37], [38]. Therefore, a combined approach (i.e. quantitative and qualitative) is more accurate for the evaluation of pedestrian LOS [39]. Table 1 summarizes various studies conducted in different countries highlighting the factors influencing LOS of uninterrupted facilities. 2.2 Level of Service of Interrupted Facilities Interrupted facilities are those where substantial conflict exists between vehicular and pedestrian movements. These are also termed as crosswalks and are considered to be more critical locations as compared to the sidewalks. These facilities can further be categorized into signalized intersection, un-signalized intersection and midblock crosswalks. Another classification of the pedestrian crossings is: At-grade and Grade-separated crossings [10], [11]. At- grade pedestrian crossings are those where pedestrians cross the carriageway at the same level as that of vehicles that results in pedestrianvehicle collision problems. Grade-Separated Crossings are those where pedestrians are required to cross the carriageway at a level different from that of vehicular traffic so as to have uninterrupted flow such as 418

4 TABLE 1. Level of Service of Uninterrupted Facilities Author[s] Fruin (1971) [16]; Pushkarev and Zupan (1975) [17]; Polus et al. (1983) [18] HCM (2000) [10]; Azzawi and Raeside (2007) [67]; Talevska and Todorova (2012) [36]; Sahani and Bhuyan (2013) [79] Hoogendoorn (2004) [72]; Muraleetharan et al. (2005) [39]; Marisamynathan and Lakshmi (2016) [75] Khisty [1994] [37]; Christopoulou and Latinopoulou (2012) [70]; Country United States; Israel United States; Republic of Macedonia; Spain; India The Netherlands; India United States; India Type of Facility Roadway segment; public transit areas Street Segments, Sidewalks and Public Transit Areas Sidewalks and Walkways Roadway segment Factors Average Speed, Area Occupancy by pedestrians, flow and density Speed, Area Occupancy, flow and density, Density, Delay Wait Time Geometric Factors Potential Determinants Traffic Characteristics - Vehicle Interactions Environmental Factors Land-Use Accessibility Sidewalk Width, Presence of guardrails Walk area widthvolume; walk areaoutside lane buffer and Outside lane traffic volume, Outside lane No. of Conflicts, No. of Stops, Swerving Lateral and Longitudinal Distance Obstructions to flow Traffic and 419

5 Rastogi et al. (2014) [78] Walk area penetrations motor vehicle speed and heavy vehicle volumes Landis et al. (2001) [23]; Petritsch et al. (2006) [33]; Jensen (2007) [50]; Asadi- Shekari et al. (2013) [66] Laxman et al. (2010) [24]; Singh and Jain (2011) [81] Kang et al. (2013) [22]; Kim et al. (2014) [74] NCHRP (2009) [19]; Wicramasinghe and Dissanayake (2016) [82] United States; Denmark and Japan India China; South Korea United States; Sri Lanka Roadway corridor; Segment; sidewalk Sidewalks; Wide Sidewalks and Precincts Roadway segment; bicycle and pedestrian shared paths; walkways Sidewalks Speed, Age Gender, Carrying Cell phone or Baggage Age of the respondent, Personal Space and Evasive Movements Opposing Flow, Types and widths of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; Volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists, and parked cars; the presence of median, trees, and bus stops and the numbers and widths of the drive lanes Roadway features Sidewalk width, the presence of a barrier separating the sidewalk from motor-vehicle traffic, the presence of parking next to the sidewalk, the presence of businesses along the sidewalk Availability of Obstacles, Width of Sidewalks Motorized traffic volume and speed Traffic Flow Condition Environment Walking Environment Traffic volume Urban land uses; rural landscapes Different Land Uses Commercial, Residential and Leisure Land uses 420

6 Safety Chen et al. (2017) [68] Shangai Sidewalks Corazza et al. (2016) [71] Rome Sidewalks and Carriageways Age, Gender, Employment, Car ownership, Trip Purpose Pavement condition, Presence of Obstacles Type of neighbourhood 421

7 subways and foot-over bridge. With respect to locational aspects, at-grade crossings can further be classified as pedestrian crossings at intersections (Controlled or Uncontrolled) and crossings away from intersection (Mid-Block Crossings) [12]. The service measures of all these facilities distinguished from one another. LOS of various crosswalks have been studied on the basis of pedestrian waiting time, holding area, and pedestrian flow characteristics [40], [41], [42]. The factors prompting the LOS vary with respect to the type of facility available and its location. Signalized Crosswalk Intersections. In twentieth century, the pedestrian delay has been used as the key measure for evaluating the level of service of signalized intersections [43]. Later on, HCM 2000 has provided two methodologies for determining the pedestrian LOS at signalized intersections. One is based on signal delay incurred by the pedestrian and second on pedestrian space requirements. Although delay and space requirements are easily computable, but they do not signify all the factors determining level of quality perceived by pedestrians [44], [45], [46]. Afterwards, HCM 2010 has suggested that the various determinants such as geometric parameters (crossing width and length), pedestrian crossing behaviour and delay, traffic characteristics (permitted left and right turn vehicle volume, vehicle speed) and operational characteristics (signal timings and signal control) need to be considered to evaluate pedestrian LOS. Several studies have also emphasised on the effect of turning manoeuvres of vehicles on pedestrian delay and pedestrian safety [47], [48], [49], [50]. The effect of bidirectional flow on area occupancy and speed has also been observed by various researchers using observational studies, pedestrian opinion surveys and simulation approaches [40], [41], [51], [52]. Researchers have used ordinary least squares and developed various mathematical models such as ordered probit models for defining and predicting the level of service offered by the signalised intersection facilities [52], [53]. Most of the studies have not given importance to the pedestrian safety, comfort and convenience. However, it has been observed that the unsafe behavior (non-uniform arrival pattern and signal non-compliance) of pedestrians leads to a large number of pedestrian accidents [54], [55]. Therefore, some of the studies have considered pedestrians sense of safety, comfort, attractiveness and coherence with the facility to measure the perceived LOS [56]. Un-Signalized Crosswalk Intersections. Un-signalized intersections are those where pedestrian crosses against the free-flowing traffic stream and are either equipped with or without roundabouts. Researchers have observed more complexity in the evaluation of service offered by the un-signalized intersections due to involvement of intersecting sidewalk flows and pedestrian judgement of an acceptable gap. Basic factors influencing the LOS of unsignalised intersections are same as that of signalised intersections, only difference being the presence of signals due to which in case of unsignalised intersections, acceptance of suitable gap becomes the key index performance measure. Studies have also been carried out for pedestrian LOS in view of the pedestrian s perception of comfort and safety [57], [58]. Mid-Block Crosswalk Intersections. Mid-bock crosswalks are to be provided for people to cross the street safely between building entries or bus stop locations or active land uses on opposite sides of the street. It is completely different and complex hazardous crossing locations as compared to signalized intersection crosswalks. These crossings can be controlled and uncontrolled. Controlled or protected crossings are either equipped with the traffic signals known as pelican signals or with zebra crossings gaining priority of movement with respect to vehicular traffic. Uncontrolled or unprotected crossings are more critical locations for crossing with no designated markings that encourage the pedestrians to adopt risky crossing behavior. Maximum number of pedestrian accidents take place at such crossing locations due to uncontrolled higher speed of vehicles and pedestrians tendency in taking risks due to higher waiting time [59], [60]. Few studies have explored that difficulty experienced by pedestrians in crossing at midblock segments increases with an increase in vehicle volume, speed of the vehicle, crossing width, and length of traffic signal cycles, whereas it decreases with the presence of marked crosswalks, traffic signals, and restricted medians [61], [62]. Some studies have considered the effect of group behavior and emphasised on the importance of pedestrian perception of safety at midblock crosswalks under mixed traffic conditions [63], [64], [65]. Several research studies about pedestrian LOS at signalised, un-signalised and midblock crosswalks are summarized in Table

8 Table 2. Level of Service of Interrupted Facilities Author[s] Milazzo II et al. (1999) [43]; Miller et al. (2000) [32]; Muraleetharan et al. (2005) [39]; Bian et al. (2009) [54] Zhang and Prevedouros (2003) [47]; Steinman and Hines (2004) [48]; Petritsch et al. (2005) [53] Goh and Lam (2004) [51] Country United States, Japan China United States Hong Kong Socio- Demographic Variables Factors crossing behaviour Perceived Safety and Comfort Walking Speed, Flow Geometrical Factors Crosswalk width and length, Crossing Facilities Crossing distance, Roadway space allocation, Corner Radius dimension, Presence/absence of right-turn channelization islands Potential Determinants Traffic Characteristics Traffic Conflicts Conflicting and Turning traffic Flow, Midblock 85th percentile speed of the vehicles on street being crossed Traffic Volume Operational Characteristics Traffic Signal Characteristics Change Interval delay and Compliance Delay to s Delay Land Use Accessibility Shopping and Commercial Lee et al. (2005) [40]; Alhajyaseen and Nakamura (2010) [41]; Nagraj and Vedagiri (2013) Hong Kong, Japan, India Bidirectional Flow, Area Occupancy and Walking Speed Turning Vehicles and through vehicles Delay 423

9 [42] Hubbard et al. (2007) [75]; Hubbard et al. (2009) [101] Vijayawargiya and Rokade (2017) [57] Baltes and Chu (2002) [61]; NCHRP (2009) [19] Shi et al. (2007) [80]; Chutani et al. (2013) [63] Chowdhury (2014) [69]; Kadali (2014) [64]; Pawar et al. (2016) [76] Zhao et al. (2014) [62]; Ni et al. (2017) [83] Rastogi et al. (2011) [77]; Kadali and Vedagiri (2015) [6]; Kadali and Vedagiri (2016) [65] United States direction of travel, Pedesrtrian Arrival Rate India United States China, India India Crossing Speed, Waiting Time, Group Size Crossing behavior and dilemma zone China India Age of Participants and Gender of Participants Rolling behavior of pedestrian and speed change behavior of pedestrian Crosswalk Characteristics Refuge, Crosswalk Surface and Lighting Condition, Width of painted medians and signal spacing Right-turn traffic volume Vehicular Speed, Vehicular Volume Turning movements Presence of signals and cycle length Vehicular Flow Width of Road Segment Distance between marked -unmarked crosswalks Number of lanes Vehicular Flow Volume of two-way motor vehicle Vehicle Speed and Number of vehicles encountered Signal Operational Characteristics Delay Mixed, Shopping, Residential, Commercial 424

10 3 Methodology: Ranking Criteria Extensive literature survey shows that the studies have been conducted in different countries and various locations with different traffic and pedestrian characteristics for measuring the level of service of existing pedestrian facilities. The crucial step for measuring the effectiveness of uninterrupted and interrupted pedestrian facilities is the identification of the potential factors that affect their quality of service. Broadly, factors such as pedestrian factors, geometrical characteristics, traffic characteristics (volume and speed), demographic and socioeconomic characteristics (age group, gender, ethnicity, automobile ownership, and mean household income), mode and trip purpose, environmental aspects (time of day and weather), geometric conditions (topography, street width, and road functional class) and geographic location have a bearing on pedestrian activity. Therefore, after reviewing of the potential factors of various studies (25 studies each) as shown in Table 1 and Table 2 for uninterrupted and interrupted pedestrian facility respectively, ranks have been assigned to the various factors depicting the importance of such factors. The ranking has been given on the basis of number of times (frequency), the factor being assigned as one of the key factors influencing LOS of the facility under consideration. The resulting rank order is then turned into weights, for example, by using the rank ordered centroid method by using the equation 1. W i = ( 1 ) M 1 M k=i (1) n Where; W i is the weight for i-th rank; M is the number of ranks; n is the rank of the attribute The results for all the potential factors are computed and presented in Table 3. Table 3. Ranking and Weights of Potential Determinants S.No. Potential Determinants Frequency of emerging out as key factor in previous studies Ranks Assigned Weights Calculated U* I** U* I** U* I** 1. Factors st 2 nd Geometric Factors nd 3 rd Traffic Characteristics rd 1 st Vehicle Interactions th Environmental Factors th Socio-demographic variables th 7 th

11 7. Operational Characteristics th Delay and Compliance th Land-Use Accessibility th 6 th Note: *U - Uninterrupted Facilities **I - Interrupted Facilities Table 3 depicts the frequency of the factors that emerged out as a significant factor for defining the level of service of different crosswalk facilities. The factor with the maximum frequency has been ranked first indicating the influencing power of that factor in prompting LOS of uninterrupted and interrupted pedestrian facilities. All the other rankings have been given in the same manner. Thereafter, weights have been calculated using the rank order centroid method, which gives the weighted average of the factors in determining the pedestrian LOS. The sum of weights has come out to be 1 for the respective pedestrian facility which depicts that factor with the maximum weight have maximum influence on the LOS of the facility. Further, factors are arranged in the decreasing order of their importance based on the ranking assigned and weights calculated. Uninterrupted Facilities Factors [1 st ] > Geometric Factors [2 nd ] > Traffic Characteristics [3 rd ] > -Vehicle Interactions [4 th ] > Land-Use Accessibility [5 th ] > Environmental Factors [6 th ] > Socio-Demographic Variables [7 th ] Interrupted Facilities Traffic Characteristics [1 st ] > Factors [2 nd ] > Geometric Factors [3 rd ] > Delay and Compliance [4 th ] > Operational Characteristics [5 th ] > Land-Use Accessibility [6 th ] >Socio-Demographic Variables [7 th ] In case of uninterrupted pedestrian facilities, as depicted in Table 3, pedestrian factors (pedestrian flow, pedestrian density, area occupancy, speed) have emerged to be the most influencing factor affecting the LOS with maximum weight of 0.37, followed by geometric factors (walkway/sidewalk width, presence of obstacle, walkable area etc.) with 0.23 weight. Traffic characteristics (traffic volume, vehicular density etc.) have been ranked third with 0.16 calculated weight followed by the pedestrian-vehicle interactions with 0.11 weight. Further, land-use accessibility (commercial, residential, recreational, industrial etc.) environmental factors (climate, weather, seasons) have been ranked fifth and sixth with 0.07 and 0.04 weights respectively, indicating that these are not significantly influencing the LOS. Whereas, in case of interrupted pedestrian facilities, traffic characteristics (turning movements and vehicular flow) have been ranked first with the maximum weight of 0.37 depicting that traffic characteristics have 37 percent of weightage in deciding the LOS, therefore, emerged to be the most influencing factor affecting the pedestrian movement and crossing behavior. It has been followed by pedestrian factors (pedestrian flow- unidirectional or bidirectional, pedestrian speed etc.) that accounts for 23 percent; geometric factors (crosswalk width, crosswalk length, presence of 426

12 pedestrian refuge islands, presence of medians etc.) (16 percent); pedestrian delay and compliance (11 percent); operational characteristics (7 percent) and land-use accessibility (4 percent). It has been also observed that socio-demographic variables (gender, age of pedestrians, education, employment etc.) have been ranked seven in both the cases which implies that these variables are least significant with only 2 percent weightage. Although, these socio-demographic variables indirectly play a crucial role in deciding the LOS of the facility. Therefore, the variation among the different socio-demographic factors need to be observed before modeling any pedestrian facility so that the facility can accommodate all types of users. All the factors depend on each other and are co-related to each other. Based on the site location and characteristics, the level of association between the factors may vary. The factors interdependence is shown in the Figure. 1. which depicts that although some of the factors are more prominent but are interrelated to each other with socio-demographic being the principal factor. Figure. 1. Interdependence among various factors influencing LOS 4. Conclusion A review of LOS of pedestrian facilities i.e. uninterrupted (sidewalks) and interrupted (intersection, and midblock crosswalk locations) is discussed in the study and the factors that should be considered for the evaluation of such types of facilities have been deduced. Along with the factors, the 427

13 study has also highlighted the methodologies adopted for analysing the pedestrian walking behavior or defining the pedestrian LOS. In the present scenario, researchers focus on both quantitative and qualitative approach as needs of pedestrian s have changed over the course of time. Nowadays, more stress has been laid on the importance of new measures of effectiveness such as safety, comfort, convenience etc. for evaluating the LOS of pedestrian facilities. The literature has also emphasised the need for designing the facilities for all kind of pedestrian users (elderly people, persons with disabilities, visually-impaired persons and persons using any kind of assistive devices) using new modelling techniques which in turn depends on the factors that influence the service quality. Therefore, the potential factors along with the methodology adopted in the various studies have been critically reviewed. On the basis of their frequency of assigning as the key factor, the ranks have been assigned to all the potential factors and thereafter, weights for each factor have been calculated using rank order centroid method. It is concluded that, pedestrians and geometric factors have emerged as the influencing factors for deciding the LOS offered by the uninterrupted facilities. In contrast, traffic characteristics and pedestrian factors have found to be the determining factors for interrupted facilities. Socio-demographic variables have found to be the least influencing factor for evaluating the LOS both in case of uninterrupted and interrupted facilities. Although, in some studies it has been explored that LOS of pedestrian facilities highly depends on the behavior of the pedestrians that in turn is influenced by socio-demographic characteristics. However, there is no standardised model or factors that influence LOS due to variability in the walking conditions, the study suggests to focus on the most influencing factors affecting the LOS and model the pedestrian facilities considering only those factors that would be economical in terms of time, efforts and resources. References [1]. Myslowski. J, Negative Impact of Motorization on the Natural Environment, TEKA Kom. Mot. i Energ. Roln. OL PAN 2011; 11: [2]. Tanaboriboon. Y, Jing. Q, Chinese pedestrians and their walking characteristics: Case study in Beijing, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1994; 1441: [3]. Curtin Univ. of Technology. West Perth pedestrian study, 1 st Edition, City of Perth, Australia, [4]. Arasan. VT, Rengaraju. VR, Rao. KVK, Characteristics of Trips by Foot and Bicycle Modes in Indian City, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE 1994; 120(2): [5]. Kadali. BR, Vedagiri. P, Review of Level of Service: Perspective in Developing Countries, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2016; 2581: [6]. Kadali. BR, Vedagiri. P, Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of land-use, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2015; 73: [7]. Tiwari. G, infrastructure in the city transport system: Delhi case study, World Transport Policy and Practice 2001; 7(4): [8]. WHO (World Health Organization). Global Status Report on Road Safety. World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland,

14 [9]. Mohan. D, Tiwari. G, Bhalla. K, Road Safety in India, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme (TRIPP), New Delhi, India, [10]. Transportation Research Board. HCM, Highway capacity manual, Washington, D.C., [11]. Transportation Research Board. HCM, Highway capacity manual, Washington, D.C., [12]. IRC (Indian Road Congress):103. Guidelines for Facilities, New Delhi, India, [13]. Ferreira. MAG, Sanches. SDP, Proposal of a Sidewalk Accessibility Index, Journal of Urban and Environmental Engineering 2007; 1(1):1 9. [14]. ADAAG, Accessibility Guidelines. U.S. Access Board, [15]. Shekari. ZA, Moeinaddini. M, Shah. MZ, Disabled Level of Service Method for Evaluating and Promoting Inclusive Walking Facilities on Urban Streets, Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE 2013; 139(2): [16]. Fruin. JJ, Planning and Design, 1 st Edition, Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, New York, [17]. Pushkarev. B, Zupan. JM, Urban Space for s: A Report of the Regional Plan Association, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, [18]. Polus. A., Schofer. JL, Ushpiz. A, Flow and Level of Service. Journal of Transportation Engineering, ASCE 1983; 109(3): [19]. NCHRP, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, NCHRP Report. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., Retreived from [20]. Dowling. RG, Flannery. A, Landis. BW, Petritsch. TA, Rouphail. NM, Ryus. P, Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2008; 2071:1-7. [21]. Erkan. I, Hastemoglu. HS, Analyzing Level of Service Through Anthropometric Scale and Its Contribution to Transportation Engineering, International Journal of Civil Engineering 2016; 14(8): [22]. Kang. L, Xiong. Y, Mannering. FL, Statistical Analysis of Perceptions of Sidewalk Level of Service in the Presence of Bicycles, Transportation Research Part A 2013; 53: [23]. Landis. BW, Vattikuti. VR, Ottenberg. RM, Mcleod. DS, Guttenplan. M, Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: A PLOS, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2001; 1773: [24]. Laxman. KK, Rastogi. R, Chandra. S, Flow Characteristics in Mixed Traffic Conditions, Journal of Urban Planning and Development ASCE 2010; 136(1): [25]. Sisiopiku. VP, Byrd. JE, Chitoor. A, Application of Level-of-Service Methods for Evaluation of Operations at Facilities, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2007; 2002: [26]. Guio. BF, Duenas. RDE, Diaz. MSE, Methodology for Estimating Capacity and Level of Service in Sidewalks, In Proceedings Pan-American Conference on Traffic and Transportation Engineering and Logistics Santander, Spain,

15 [27]. Lam. WHK, Cheung. C, Speed Flow Relationships for Walking Facilities in Hong Kong, Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE 2000; 126(4): [28]. Shekari. ZA, Moeinaddini. M, Shah. MZ, A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets, Land Use Policy, Elsevier 2014; 38(1): [29]. Yang. L, Jia. H, Juan. Z, Zhang. J, Service Level Classification of Facilities in Passenger Terminals Based on Flow Characteristics Analysis, In Proceedings 10th International Conference of Chinese Transportation Professionals, Beijing, China, 2010, pp [30]. Rahman. K, Ghani., Kamil. AA, Mustafa. A, Chowdhury. AK, Modelling Travel Time and the Design of Facilities: A Queuing Approach, PLOS ONE 2013; 8(5):1 11. [31]. Galiza. R, Ferreira. L, A Methodology for Determining Equivalent Factors in Heterogenous Flows, Computers Environment and Urban Systems 2013; 39: [32]. Miller. JS, Biglow. JA, Garber. NJ, Calibrating Level-of-Service Metrics with 3-D Visualization, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2000; 1705:9-15. [33]. Petritsch. T, Landis. B, McLoed. P, Huang. H, Vettikutti. V, Level of Service Model for Urban Arterial Facilities with Sidewalks, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2006; 1982: [34]. Teknomo. K, Application of Microscopic Simulation Model, Transportation Research Part F 2009; 9(1): [35]. Kretz. T, A Level of Service Scheme for Microscopic Simulation of s That Integrates Queuing, Uni- and Multi-Directional Flow Situations, European Transport Research Reviews 2011; 3: [36]. Talevska. JB, Todorova. MM, Contribution to Sidewalk Level of Service Analysis, Transport Problems 2012; 7(3):1 12. [37]. Khisty. CJ, Evaluation of Facilities: Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1994; 1438: [38]. Carreno. M, Willis. A, Stradling.S, Quality of Service for s: Closing the Gaps in Knowledge, In Proceedings Traffic and Transportation Studies, Guilin, Guangxi, China, 2002, pp [39]. Muraleetharan. T, Adachi. T, Hagiwara. T, Kagaya. S, Method to Determine Level-of- Service for Crosswalks at Urban Intersections, Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 2005, 6(1), [40]. Lee. JYS, Goh. PK, Lam. WHK, New Level-of-Service Standard for Signalized Crosswalks with Bi- Directional Flows, Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE 2005; 131(12): [41]. Alhajyaseen. WKM, Nakamura. H, Asano. M, Effects of Bidirectional Flow Characteristics Upon the Capacity of Signalized Crosswalks, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2011; 16: [42]. Nagraj. R, Vedagiri. P, Modeling Delay and Level of Service at Signalized Intersection Crosswalks Under Mixed Traffic Conditions, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2013; 2394:

16 [43]. Milazzo II. JS, Rouphail. NM, Hummer. JE, Allen. DP, Quality of Service for Interrupted-Flow Facilities in Highway Capacity Manual 2000, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1999; 1678: [44]. Sisiopiku. VP, Zhang. X, Virkler. MR, Level of Service and Quality of Operations Assessment Methods, In Proceedings 81 st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., [45]. Crider. LB, Burden. J, Han. F, Multimodal LOS Point Level of Service Project, Final Report, University of Florida Gainesville, [46]. Chu. X, Baltes. MR, Mid-Block Crossing Difficulty, Final Report, National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, [47]. Zhang. L, Prevedouros. PD, Signalized Intersection Level of Service Incorporating Safety Risk, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2003; 1852: [48]. Steinman. N, Hines. DK, Methodology to Assess Design Features for and Bicyclist Crossings at Signalized Intersections, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2004; 1878: [49]. Akin. D, Sisiopiku. VP, Modeling Interactions Between s and Turning Vehicles at Signalized Crosswalks Operating Under Combined Vehicle Interval, In Proceedings, 86th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., [50]. Hubbard. SML, Awwad. RJ, Bullock. DM, Assessing the Impact of Turning Vehicles on Level of Service at Signalized Intersections: A New Perspective, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2007; 2027: [51]. Goh. PK, Lam. WHK, Flows and Walking Speed: A Problem at Signalised Crosswalks, Institue of Transportation Engineers Journal 2004, [52]. Lee. JYS, Lam. WHK, Simulating Movements at Signalized Crosswalks in Hong Kong, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 2008; 42(10): [53]. Petritsch. TA, Landis. BW, McLeod. PS, Huang. HF, Challa. S, Guttenplan. M, Level-of-Service Model for s at Signalized Intersections, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2005, 1939: [54]. Bian. Y, Ma. J, Rong. J, Wang. J, Lu. J, s Level of Service at Signalized Intersections in China, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2009; 2114: [55]. Ye. X, Chen. J, Jiang. G, Yan. X, Modeling Level of Service at Signalized Intersection Crosswalks Under Mixed Traffic Conditions, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2015; 2512: [56]. Ni. Y, Cao. Y, Li. K, s Safety Perception at Signalized Intersections in Shanghai, Transportation Research Procedia 2017; 25: [57]. Vijayawargiya. V, Rokade. S, Identification of Factors Affecting Level of Service of Crosswalks at Roundabouts, International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology 2017; 4(6):

17 [58]. Bian. Y, Lu. W, Zhao. J, Method to Determine s Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections, International Journal of Applied Mechanics and Materials 2013; 253(1): [59]. Garder. PE, The Impact of Speed and Other Variables on Safety in Maine, Accident Analysis and Prevention 2004; 36(4): [60]. Diogenes. MC, Lindau. LA, Evaluation of Safety at Midblock Crossings Porto Alegre Brazil, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2010; 2193: [61]. Baltes. MR, Chu. X, Level of Service for Midblock Street Crossings, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2002; 1818: [62]. Zhao. L, Bian. Y, Lu. J, Rong. J, Method to Determine Level of Service for the Overall Unsignalized Midblock Crossings of Road Segments, Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2014; 6:1-9. [63]. Chutani. C, Parida. P, LOS for at Uncontrolled Mid-Block Crossing, In Proceedings Urban Mobility India Conference, New Delhi, India, [64]. Kadali. BR, Rathi. N, Perumal. V, Evaluation of pedestrian mid-block road crossing behaviour using artificial neural network, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering 2014; 1(2): [65]. Kadali. BR, Vedagiri. P, quality of service at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions: Towards quantitative approach, Transport Journal 2016; 4142:1-13. [66]. Asadi-Shekari. Z, Moeinaddini. M, Shah. MZ, A Disabled Level of Service Method for Evaluating and Promoting Inclusive Walking Facilities on Urban Streets, Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE 2013; 139(2): [67]. Azzawi. MA, Raeside. R, Modeling Walking Speeds on Sidewalks, Journal of Urban Planning and Development 2007; 133(3): [68]. Chen. Y, Jiao. J, Mao. J, Wu. H, Understanding s Travel Behavior in Large Chinese Cities, A Case Study of Shanghai Central City, Transportation Research Procedia 2017; 25: [69]. Chowdhury. MS, Easing Congestion with Crossing at Midblock, In Proceedings T&DI Congress ASCE, Orlando, Florida, [70]. Christopoulou. P, Latinopoulou. MP, Development of a Model for the Estimation of Level of Service in Greek Urban Areas, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences Elsevier 2012; 48(1): [71]. Corazza, MV, Mascio. PD, Moretti. L, Managing sidewalk pavement maintenance: A case study to increase pedestrian safety, Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering Elsevier 2016; 3(3): [72]. Hoogendoorn. SP, Walking Behavior in Bottlenecks and its Implications for Capacity, In Proceedings 83 rd Annual Meeting of Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington DC, [73]. Hubbard. SML, Bullock. DM, Mannering. FL, Right Turns on Green and Level of Service: Statistical Assessment, Journal of Transportation Engineering ASCE 2009; 135(4):

18 [74]. Kim. S, Choi. J, Kim. S, Tay. R, Personal Space, Evasive Movement and Level of Service, Journal of Advanced Transportation 2014; 48: [75]. Marisamynathan. S, Lakshmi. S, Method to Determine Level of Service for Sidewalks in Indian Context, Transportation Letters Taylor & Francis Group [76]. Pawar. DS, Kumar. V, Singh. N, Patil. GR, Analysis of dilemma zone for pedestrians at high-speed uncontrolled midblock crossing, Transportation Research Part C 2016; 70(1): [77]. Rastogi. R, Chandra. S, Vamsheedhar. J, Das. VR, Parametric Study of Speeds at Midblock Crossings, Journal of Urban Planning and Development ASCE 2011; 137(4): [78]. Rastogi. R, Chandra. S, Mohan. M, Development of Level of Service Criteria for s, Journal of Indian Roads Congress 2014; 2014: [79]. Sahani. R, Bhuyan. PK, Level of Service Criteria of off-street Facilities in Indian Context using Affinity Propagation Clustering, Proceedings 2 nd Conference of Transportation Research Group of India, Agra, India, [80]. Shi. J, Chen. Y, Ren. Y, Rong. J, Research on Behavior and Traffic Characteristics at Unsignalized Midblock Crosswalk, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2009; 2038: [81]. Singh. K, Jain. PK, Methods of Assessing Level of Service, Journal of Engineering Research and Studies 2011; 2(1): [82]. Wicramasinghe. V, Dissanayake. S, Evaluation of pedestrians sidewalk behavior in developing countries, Transportation Research Procedia Elsevier 2017; 25: