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