Pedestrian safety index for evaluating street facilities in urban areas

Pedestrian facilities; Pedestrian safety requirements; Point system; Safe walking; Street evaluation; Evaluation methods; Existing problems; International standards; Practical model; Safety enhancement; Safety requirements; Pedestrian safety; Article; Singapore

Abstract :

[en] The majority of current evaluation methods for assessing pedestrian safety conditions on streets only consider limited facilities that cannot cover all of the safety needs of pedestrians with different ages and abilities. These models are not developed based on sufficient facilities at the micro-level. Several of these studies are limited to evaluating safety at intersections. However, pedestrians also require safety along street segments and in intersections. Accordingly, the objectives of this study are to conceptualize the pedestrian safety index (PSI), which evaluates facilities along the streets for pedestrians. To estimate this PSI, a point system method is proposed that compares existing conditions to a standard. This method can be used to identify existing problems and to propose improvements. In addition, the pedestrian safety enhancements described using this method can enhance the safety of older and disabled pedestrians that suffer the most from a lack of facilities. Although this practical model uses international standards to become universally applicable, one collector street in Singapore is chosen to test the model. Because this study tries to cover various street facilities, the designers can use these results to implement safe routes for pedestrians. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

Disciplines :

Civil engineering
Special economic topics (health, labor, transportation...)
Architecture
Regional & inter-regional studies

Author, co-author :

Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Centre for Innovative Planning and Development (CiPD), Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Moeinaddini, Mehdi ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département ArGEnCo > Transports et mobilité

Zaly Shah, M.; Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor, Malaysia

Language :

English

Title :

Pedestrian safety index for evaluating street facilities in urban areas

Publication date :

2015

Journal title :

Safety Science

ISSN :

0925-7535

eISSN :

1879-1042

Publisher :

Elsevier

Volume :

Pages :

1-14

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Funders :

Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia, MOHE: R.J130000.7821.4F602

Available on ORBi :

since 06 August 2020

Statistics

Number of views

74 (1 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

1 (1 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Access Minneapolis, 2008. Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks. The Minneapolis Department of Public Works, Minneapolis, MN.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Zaly Shah, M., 2011. Practical Evaluation Method for Pedestrian Level of Service in Urban Streets, International Transport Research Conference, Penang, Malaysia.
Asadi-Shekari Z., Moeinaddini M., Zaly Shah M. Non-motorised level of service: addressing challenges in Pedestrian and bicycle level of service. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33:166-194.
Asadi-Shekari Z., Moeinaddini M., Zaly Shah M. Disabled pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting inclusive walking facilities on urban streets. J. Transport. Eng. 2013, 139:181-192.
Asadi-Shekari Z., Moeinaddini M., Zaly Shah M. A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy 2014, 38:175-193.
Asadi-Shekari, Z., Moeinaddini, M., Zaly Shah, M., in press. A bicycle safety index for evaluating urban street facilities. Traffic Inj. Prev.,. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.936010.
Ashland City Council, 1999. Street Standard Handbook. Department of Community Development, Ashland, OR.
Benz, G.P., 1986. Pedestrian Time-Space Concept, A New Approach to the Planning and Design of Pedestrian Facilities. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, New York, NY.
Boodlal, L., 2001. Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Burden, D., 1999. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium, Dallas, Texas.
Carter, D.L., Hunter, W.W., Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, J.R., Huang, H.F., 2006. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Intersection Safety Indices. U.S. Department of Transportation.
CDOT, 2007. Charlotte's Urban Street Design Guideline. Charlotte Department of Transportation, Charlotte, NC.
Cirianni, F., Leonardi, G., 2008. Models for the Safety Assessment in Road Intersections for Footpaths in Urban Context, 17th National Siiv Congress, Enna, Italy.
City of Aurora, 2007. Aurora Urban Street Standards in Transit Oriented Developments and Urban Centers, Aurora, CO.
City of Calgary, 2008. Pedestrian policy and design report, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
City of Charles Sturt, 2009. Engineering & Open Space Development Guidelines - Road and Path Design Guidelines, Charles Sturt, South Australia.
City of New York, 2009. Street Design Manual. New York City Department of Transportation., New York.
City of Tacoma, 2009. Mobility Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines, Tacoma Mobility Master Plan 1, Tacoma, WA.
City of Whittlesea, 2009. City of Whittlesea Development Guidelines. Municipal Policy Direction, Victoria, Australia.
Clarke, R.A., 2008. City of Ottawa Road Corridor Planning and Design Guidelines DELCAN Corporation. The Planning Partnership, Ottawa.
Davies, D.G., 1999. Research, Development, and Implementation of Pedestrian Safety Facilities in the United Kingdom. Federal Highway Administration.
Diogenes M.C., Lindau L.A. Evaluation of Pedestrian Safety at Midblock Crossings, Porto Alegre, Brazil. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 2010, 2193:37-43.
Dixon L. Bicycle and Pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems. Transp. Res. Rec. 1996, 1538:1-9.
Dravitzki, V.K., Cleland, B.S., Walton, D., Laing, J.N., 2003. Measuring Pedestrians' Concerns for Personal Safety and the Influence of Lighting on these Concerns, 26th Australasian Transport Research Forum, New Zealand.
Dumbaugh E. Safe streets, livable streets. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2005, 71:283-300.
FDOT, 2009. Quality/level of service. Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL.
Fruin J.J. Pedestrian planning and design 1971, Metropolitan Associations of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, New York.
Gallin N. Quantifying pedestrian friendliness - guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service. Road Transport Res. 2001, 10:47-55.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 1985. Highway Capacity Manual special report 209. TRB National Research Council, Washington D.C.
Heramb C. Street and site plan design standards 2007, Chicago Department of Transportation, Chicago.
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000. Chapters 18 (Pedestrians) and 19 (Bicycles). Transportation Research Board, National Research Council., Washington, DC.
Jaskiewicz, F., 1999. Pedestrian Level of Service Based on Trip Quality, TRB Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium, Dallas, Texas.
Jensen S. Pedestrian and bicycle level of service on road way segments. Transp. Res. Rec. 2007, 2031:43-51.
Khisty C.J. Evaluation of pedestrian facilities. Beyond the level-of-service concept. Transp. Res. Rec. 1994, 1438:45-50.
King M.J., Soole D., Ghafourian A. Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections: Incidence and relative risk. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41:485-490.
Lam W.H.K., Morrall J.F., Ho H. Pedestrian flow characteristics in Hong Kong. Transp. Res. Rec. 1995, 1487:56-62.
Landis B., Vattikuti V., Ottenberg R., McLeod D., Guttenplan M. Modeling the roadside walking environment: a pedestrian level of service. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1773:82-88.
Lautso K., Murole P. A study of pedestrian traffic in Helsinki: methods and results. Traffic Eng. Control 1974, 15:446-449.
Lee C., Abdel-Aty M. Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37:775-786.
Miller J.S., Bigelow J., Garber N.J. Calibrating pedestrian level-of-service metrics with 3-D visualization. Transp. Res. Rec. 2000, 1705:9-15.
Moeinaddini M., Asadi-Shekari Z., Ismail C.R., Zaly Shah M. A practical method for evaluating parking area level of service. Land Use Policy 2013, 33:1-10.
Moeinaddini M., Asadi-Shekari Z., Zaly Shah M. The relationship between urban street networks and the number of transport fatalities at the city level. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62:114-120.
Moeinaddini M., Asadi-Shekari Z., Zaly Shah M. Analyzing the relationship between park-and-ride facilities and private motorized trips indicators. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2014, 39(5):3481-3488.
Moeinaddini M., Asadi-Shekari Z., Sultan Z., Zaly Shah M. Analyzing the relationships between the number of deaths in road accidents and the work travel mode choice at the city level. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72:249-254.
Mozer D. Calculating Multi-Mode Levels-of-Service 1994, International Bicycle Fund, Seattle, WA.
Muraleetharan T., Adachi T., Hagiwara T., Kagaya S. Method to determine overall level-of service of pedestrian walkways based on total utility value. J. Infrastruct. Plann. Manage. Japan Soc. Civ. Eng. (JSCE) 2005, 22:685-693.
Muraleetharan T., Adachi T., Hagiwara T., Kagaya S. Method to determine pedestrian level-of-service for crosswalks at urban intersections. J. Eastern Asia Soc. Transport. Stud. 2005, 6:127-136.
Narrabri Shire Council, 2001. New South Wales Development Design Specification Geometric Road Design. Narrabri Shire Council, New South Wales, Australia.
NCHRP, 2008. Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders, 2000. Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines, An Oregon Guide for Reducing Street Widths. Stakeholder Design Team, Oregon.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2013. Engineer Pedestrian facilities. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration.
Petritsch T.A., Landis B.W., McLeod P.S., Huang H.F., Challa S., Skaggs C.L., Guttenplan M., Vattikuti V. Pedestrian level-of-service model for urban arterial facilities with sidewalks. Transp. Res. Rec. 2006, 1982:84-89.
Pima County, 2005. Subdivision and Development Street Standards, Pima County, AZ.
Pushkarev B., Zupan J.M. Pedestrian Travel Demand. Highway Res. Rec. 1971, 355:37-53.
Pushkarev B., Zupan J.M. Urban Space for Pedestrians 1975, MIT Press, New York, NY.
RDM, 2010. Mn/DOT Road Design Manual. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota.
Sarkar S. Determination of service levels for pedestrians, with European example. Transp. Res. Rec. 1993, 1405:35-42.
Sarkar, S., 2002. Qualitative Evaluation of Comfort Needs in Urban Walkways in Major Activity Centers. TRB 2003 Annual Meeting [CD-ROM], Washington, DC.
Seneviratne P.N., Morrall J.F. Level of service on pedestrian facilities. Transport. Quart. 1985, 39:109-123.
Sutherland A., Morrish G. Street Design Guidelines 2006, Landcom, Parramatta, Australia. A. Petersen (Ed.).
Tan D., Wang W., Lu J., Bian Y. Research on methods of assessing pedestrian level of service for sidewalk. J. Transport. Syst. Eng. Inform. Technol. 2007, 7:74-79.
Tanaboriboon Y., Guyano J.A. Level-of-service standards for pedestrian facilities in Bangkok: a case study. ITE J. 1989, 59:39-41.
Tanaka, K., 2012. Ottawa Pedestrian Safety Evaluation Tool, "Giving the Edge to Pedestrians" Session of the 2012 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
UTTIPEC, 2009. Pedestrian Design Guidelines. Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi.
Vanderslice E. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide 1998, Office of Transportation Engineering and Development, Portland, OR.
WHO, 2013. Pedestrians, Cyclists Among Main Road Traffic Crash Victims.
Zegeer C.V. Traffic Engineering Council Committee TENC 5A 5. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities: A Recommended Practice of the Institute of Transportation Engineers 1998, ITE, Washington DC.