The Florida Department of Transportation is in the process of developing a statistically estimated model of pedestrian quality of service for midblock street crossings as part of its Multimodal Quality of Service Program. This model is to be used in evaluating the level of service of street segments for pedestrian street crossing. The actual development of the model, including methodological issues explored, data collection, and model calibration and validation, is reported separately. A process was used to select potential determinants of perceived pedestrian quality of service for midblock street crossings. This process is structured and involves two steps. The first step involves the selection of a set of potential determinants through a theoretical analysis of pedestrian behavior for street crossing. The theoretical consideration ensures that these potential determinants have a sound behavioral foundation. The second step involves narrowing down this theoretical set through a practical analysis of planning needs and data requirements by an advisory committee. This practical consideration ensures that the final set of potential determinants and the model both are practically relevant.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChuX., and BaltesM. R.. Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Difficulty: Final Report. National Center for Transit Research, University of South Florida, Tampa, 2001.
2.
ChuX., and BaltesM. R.. Pedestrian Level of Service for Midblock Street Crossing: Methodological Issues. Presented at 81st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002.
3.
BaltesM. R., and ChuX.. Pedestrian Level of Service for Midblock Street Crossings. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1818, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 125–133.
4.
HarkeyD. L., ReinfurtD. W., KnuimanM., StewartJ. R., and SortonA.. Development of the Bicycle Comparability Index: A Level of Service Concept. Report FHWA-RD-98-072. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998. http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/oldhsrc/research/pedbike/98072. Accessed Sept. 2000.
5.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., OttenbergR. M., McLeodD. S., and GuttenplanM.. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–88.
6.
WellarB.Walking Security Index-Final Report. Department of Geography, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1998.
7.
GallinN.Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness: Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service. Road and Transport Research, Vol. 10, 2001, pp. 47–55.
8.
PecheuxK. K., PietruchaM. T., and JovanisP. P.. User Perception of Level of Service at Signalized Intersections: Methodological Issues. In Transportation Research Circular E-C018, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 322–335.
McLeodD. S.Multimodal Arterial Level of Service. In Transportation Research Circular E-C018, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 221–233.
11.
KaracheponeJohn.Multi-modal Level of Service: Concepts/Approach to Transit Quality of Service Methodology. Technical Memorandum. Kittleson and Associates, Inc., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., 2000.
12.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., and BrannickM. T.. Real-Time Human Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record 1578, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119–126.
13.
Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 3rd ed. (1997 update). TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
14.
DixonL. B.Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.
15.
RouphailN. M., HummerJ. E., MilazzoJ. S.II, and AllenD. P.. Recommended Procedures for Chapter 13, “Pedestrians,” of the HCM. Report FHWA-RD-98-107. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1998.
16.
DunnR. C. M., and PrettyR. L.. Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossings: An Examination of Delay. Proc., 12th Annual Conference of the Australian Road Research Board, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia, Aug.1984, Vol. 2, 1984, pp. 118–127.
17.
BlackJ., DunneM., and GuoX.-P.. Effects of Urban Bunched Traffic Flow on Pedestrian Delay. Proc., 1st International Conference on Traffic and Transportation Studies, Beijing, China, July27–29, 1998, pp. 598–607.
18.
HuntJ., and AbduljabbarJ.. Crossing the Road: A Method of Assessing Pedestrian Crossing Difficulty. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 34, 1993, pp. 526–532.
19.
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000.
20.
PalamarthyS., MahmassaniH. S., and MachemehlR. B.. Models of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Signalized Intersections. Research Report 1296-1. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin, 1994.
21.
CoffinA, and MorrallJ.. Walking Speeds of Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks. Transportation Research Record 1487, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1995, pp. 63–67.
22.
HoxieR. E., and RubensteinL. Z.. Are Older Pedestrians Allowed Enough Time to Cross Intersections Safely?Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Vol. 42, 1994, pp. 241–244.
23.
BowmanB. L., and VecellioR. L.. Pedestrian Walking Speeds and Conflicts at Urban Median Locations. Transportation Research Record 1438, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 67–73.
24.
DiDietroC. M., and KingL. E.. Pedestrian Gap-Acceptance. Highway Research Record 308, HRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1970, pp. 80–91.
25.
PushkarevB., and ZupanJ.. Urban Space for Pedestrians. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
26.
HarrellW. A., and BereskaTami. Gap Acceptance by Pedestrians. Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 75, 1992, pp. 432–434.
27.
OudejansR. R. D., MichaelsC. F., van DortB., and FrissenE. J. P.. To Cross or Not to Cross: The Effect of Locomotion on Street Crossing Behavior. Ecological Psychology, Vol. 8, 1996, pp. 259–267.
28.
HuntJ. G., and GriffithsJ. D.. Pedestrian Crossing Criteria Research: Random Crossing Model. TRRL Contract Report CR 248. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, United Kingdom, 1991.
29.
HineJ., and RussellJ.. Traffic Barriers and Pedestrian Crossing Behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 1, 1993, pp. 230–239.
30.
HuntJ.Developments in the Layout and Operation of Midblock Pedestrian Crossings in the United Kingdom. Proc., 2nd International Symposium on Highway Geometric Design, Mainz, Germany, June14–17, 2000 (BrilonW., and KrammesR., eds.), pp. 586–597.
31.
HuntJ.A Comparison of Pedestrian Safety in Great Britain When Crossing the Road at Signal Controlled Crossings at Midblock and at Junctions. Traffic Safety on Two Continents, 10th Annual Meeting, Malmo, Sweden, Sept.20–22, 1999, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, Linköping, Sweden, 2000.
32.
HomburgerW. S., HallJ. W., LoutzenheiserB. C., and ReillyW. R.. Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 14th ed. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1996.
