U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000


Skip to content U.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway AdministrationU.S. Department of Transportation/Federal Highway Administration

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

 
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-98-107
Date: February 1998

Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Recommended Procedures for the "Pedestrians" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual

PDF Version (596 KB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

 

TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION

1. Report No.
FHWA-RD-98-107
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.
4. Title and Subtitle

CAPACITY ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES: RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES
FOR THE "PEDESTRIANS" CHAPTER OF THE HIGHWAY CAPACITY MANUAL

5. Report Date
6. Performing Organization Code
7. Author(s)

N. Rouphail, J. Hummer, J. Milazzo II, P. Allen

8. Performing Organization Report No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address

North Carolina State University
Department of Civil Engineering
Box 7908
Raleigh, NC 27695-7908

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
3A4b
11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-92-R-00138

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Safety Research & Development
Federal Highway Administration
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, Virginia 22101-2296

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

April 1995 - February 1998

14. Sponsoring Agency Code
15. Supplementary Notes

Contracting Officer's Technical Representative: Carol Tan Esse, HDRS

16. Abstract

The objective of this project is to develop revised operational analysis procedures for transportation facilities with pedestrian and bicyclist users. This document describes the effects of pedestrians and bicyclists on the capacity of signalized intersections. These procedures augment the existing Highway Capacity Manual signalized intersection Level of Service procedures for locations with substantial pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic conflicting with vehicular turning movements. This document incorporates the results of a multi-regional data-collection effort that confirms the validity of a conflict zone occupancy approach to analyze pedestrian and bicycle effects on signalized intersection capacity.

In addition to this report, there were two additional reports produced as part of this effort on Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. These reports are subtitled as:

  1. Recommended Procedures for the "Bicycles" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual (FHWA-RD-98-108)

  2. Recommeded Procedures for the "Signalized Intersection" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual (FHWA-RD-98-106)

17. Key Words:

pedestrian, level of service, platoon, delay, capacity

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the
public through the National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

19. Security Classif. (of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Form DOT F 17000.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page is authorized

 


TABLE OF CONTENTS

  1. INTRODUCTION

  2. SUMMARY OF PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS

  3. SERVICE MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

  4. METHODS FOR COMPUTING MEASURES OF EFFECTIVENESS

  5. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN AND/OR ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

  6. APPENDIX

  7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

  8. REFERENCES

  9. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION PAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1 A wide variety of transportation facilities must effectively serve a wide variety of users.
FIGURE 2 Recommended pedestrian body ellipse for standing areas.
FIGURE 3 This elderly pedestrian, and others like her, may be helped by the proposed revisions to crosswalk walking speeds
FIGURE 4 The proposed revisions to crosswalk walking speeds may also benefit people who are not elderly, such as this pedestrian pushing a stroller
FIGURE 5 Illustration of proposed walkway Level of Service thresholds
FIGURE 6 Pedestrians who know each other often travel in platoons
FIGURE 7 Noncompliant pedestrian behavior is common at this Chicago, Illinois, intersection due to low conflicting vehicle volumes
FIGURE 8 Noncompliant behavior is not limited to pedestrians at the same Chicago, Illinois, intersection
FIGURE 9 Field measurements of pedestrian delay at midblock crossings in Great Britain
FIGURE 10 Simulation results of pedestrian delay at fixed-time pelican crossings in Great Britain
FIGURE 11 Simulation results of pedestrian delay at vehicle-actuated pelican crossings in Great Britain
FIGURE 12 Simulation results of pedestrian delay at zebra crossings in Great Britain
FIGURE 13 Effect of crossing width and conflicting vehicle volume on pedestrian

 


 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1   Recommended pedestrian crosswalk walking speeds
TABLE 2   Existing HCM walkway Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 3   Walkway Level of Service (LOS) thresholds by space (m2/ped) and flow rate(ped/m/min)
TABLE 4   Recommended HCM walkway Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 5   Platoon-adjusted walkway Level of Service (LOS) thresholds
TABLE 6   Recommended HCM platoon-adjusted walkway Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 7   Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for platoon flow in transportation terminalsa
TABLE 8   Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteria for platoon flow in transportations
TABLE 9   Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteria for stairs
TABLE 10   Recommended capacity thresholds for crossflows
TABLE 11   Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for one-way, two-lane, mixed-use paths
TABLE 12   Level of Service (LOS) thresholds for two-way, two-lane, mixed-use paths
TABLE 13   Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteria for two-lane, mixed-use paths
TABLE 14   Selected de facto WALK extension times
TABLE 15   Existing HCM signalized intersection Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 16   Pedestrian and vehicle delay at midblock crossings in Great Britain
TABLE 17   Selected thresholds for maximum pedestrian delay at signalized intersections
TABLE 18   Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteria for signalized crossing delay
TABLE 19   Existing HCM unsignalized intersection Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 20   Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteriafor unsignalized crossing delay
TABLE 21   Existing HCM queueing area Level of Service (LOS) criteria
TABLE 22   Comparison of existing HCM vehicle arterial Level of Service (LOS) criteria with pedestrian arterial threshold proposals by both Virkler and North Carolina State University
TABLE 23   Default values of Delay Adjustment Factors (DF) for positive pedestrian platooning

Next

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration