Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Recommended Procedures for the "Signalized Intersections" Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions
As a result of this research, the following conclusions are offered:
- There is a wide variation among existing adjustments to vehicular saturation flow due to pedestrians.
- The HCM may not accurately predict the effect of a moderate pedestrian or bicycle volume on turning traffic.
-
The procedures described herein should improve the analysis and performance of signalized intersections subject to nonmotorized interference of turning movements.
Recommendations
Based on the above conclusions, the following recommendations are made:
-
It is recommended that the HCM include the proposed saturation flow adjustment factors f Rpb and f
Lpb to account for the effect of pedestrians and bicycles on signalized intersections.
- It is recommended that the HCM simplify fRT to account only for the effect of radius.
Based on the results of the Literature Synthesis for Chapter 13, "Pedestrians," of the Highway Capacity Manual (Rouphail et al., 1998), the following additional recommendation is made:
As stated in the Recommended Procedures for Chapter 13, "Pedestrians," of the Highway Capacity Manual (Rouphail et al., 1998), it is recommended that the HCM include pedestrian delay as a primary measure of effectiveness for pedestrian street corner analysis in Chapter 13 of the HCM (Table 14). This will result in easily comparable delay-based service measures at signalized crossings from the perspective of both drivers and pedestrians.
TABLE 14 Recommended HCM pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) criteria for signalized crossing delay
| LOS |
Average Delay Per Pedestrian (s) |
Likelihood of Pedestrian Noncompliance |
|
A
B
C
D
E
F
|
< 10
10-20
20-30
30-40
40-60
60
|
Low
Moderate
High
Very High
|
|
