Guide to Pedestrian Analysis (2022)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1   In 2017, on a typical day in the United States, approximately 38.9 million trips were undertaken primarily by walking, representing 10.5% of trips made by all modes, making walking the second- most prevalent transportation mode after driving or riding in a private motor vehicle (1). Further- more, most trips involving private vehicles or public transit involve an element of walking, whether walking to and from parking places or walking to or from transit stops and stations. Despite widespread use of walking as a transportation mode, walking has received far less attention than the motor vehicle mode in terms of national guidance and methods to support planning, designing, and operating safe, functional, and comfortable facilities. • Pedestrian operations analysis, quantifying the operation of pedestrian facilities in terms of measures such as flow, speed, space, density, and delay, has the longest history. Research on pedestrian flow first published in the 1970s (2, 3) was added to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) in 1985 (4), making methods for analyzing sidewalks, signalized intersection cross- walks, and signalized street corners widely available to transportation analysts. These opera- tional methods were updated and expanded for the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM 2000) (5) on the basis of more-recent studies (6, 7). Analysis methods for off-street exclusive and shared-use pedestrian paths were added to the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 (8) as a result of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) research (9). • Pedestrian quality of service (QOS) analysis, quantifying the performance of pedestrian facilities from a pedestrian’s point of view, was first introduced on a wide scale around 2000 in Florida, beginning with “Walks for Science” (10), and leading to statewide analysis proce- dures that have since been incorporated into several editions of the Florida Department of Transportation (DOT) Quality/Level of Service Handbook (11). Prior to these efforts, opera- tional measures that mirrored traditional motor vehicle performance measures (e.g., density, delay) were used as proxies for pedestrian satisfaction in manuals such as the HCM. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets (12) built upon the Florida pedestrian methods with national data, and its methods appear in both the 2010 and 2016 editions of the HCM. • Pedestrian volume counting guidance on a national scale first appeared in conjunction with the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Program starting in 2004 (13), and FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring Guide (14) added a chapter on nonmotorized vehicle counting in 2013. The following year NCHRP Report 797: Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection (15) summarized the state of the practice of nonmotorized counting and added new knowledge about the accuracy of various automated counting technologies. • Pedestrian safety analysis, although studied on a small scale for many years, has only been the focus of large-scale national projects for the last 10 to 15  years. These projects have C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

2 Guide to Pedestrian Analysis generally focused on specific aspects of pedestrian safety such as uncontrolled crossings (16), risk-assessment methods (17), countermeasure selection (18), and systemic pedestrian safety analysis (19). The Highway Safety Manual, 2nd ed., (HSM), in development at the time of writing, is expected to provide more comprehensive guidance on pedestrian safety analysis. Purpose Given that much of the information related to pedestrian analysis has been developed rela- tively recently, both experienced and new analysts may be unaware of all the resources available for performing pedestrian analysis as well as the potential applications for these analyses. This guide covers four main topics: pedestrian volume counting, pedestrian safety analysis, pedes- trian operations analysis, and pedestrian QOS analysis. The guide is intended to provide a practitioner-friendly introduction to pedestrian analysis. Except for analysis methods developed or updated by NCHRP Project 17-87 that are not yet documented elsewhere, this guide refers readers to other documents for details about analysis methods and resources. The guide provides information about particular methods’ strengths, weaknesses, and data needs to help readers make informed decisions about which analysis methods may be of interest and can be performed with existing data and resources. A lack of organizational interest in, or support for, pedestrian analysis may be a barrier to getting started. Therefore, another intended use of the guide is to support decision-making to start up or expand pedestrian analysis programs by demonstrating the range of useful applica- tions for pedestrian analyses, particularly applications related to improving pedestrian safety. Organization This guide is divided into five chapters consisting of this introduction and four chapters covering the four main topics addressed by the guide, as shown in Figure 1-1. Pedestrian volume counts provide data that are used by all other types of analysis described in the guide: to determine exposure for a safety analysis, to evaluate the operation of pedes- trian facilities, and as inputs to selected QOS measures. Treatments implemented to improve pedestrian safety may also benefit pedestrian operations (e.g., shorter crossing distances at uncontrolled crossings result in lower pedestrian delay) and pedestrian QOS. Some measures of pedestrian operations, such as delay, are also important factors influencing pedestrian QOS. Each chapter points out these relationships. Appendix A provides details of new and updated analysis methods developed by NCHRP 17-87, including methods for estimating pedestrian delay at uncontrolled and signalized intersections, Figure 1-1. Organization of this guide. Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4 Chapter 5 Appendices Introduction Pedestrian Volume Counting Pedestrian Safety Analysis Pedestrian Operations Analysis Pedestrian Quality of Service Analysis Calculation Details for Analysis Method Instructions for Spreadsheet Computational Engines

Introduction 3   a method for estimating pedestrian satisfaction at uncontrolled crossings, and a method for evaluating the quality of a network of pedestrian facilities. Appendix B describes the computa- tional engines implementing these methods. How the Guide Was Developed This guide was developed through NCHRP Project 17-87, “Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Esti- mation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities.” The project had four main research objectives: • Identify techniques for efficient and accurate estimation of pedestrian volume and exposure. • Determine the field-observed factors that affect pedestrian flow at the facility level and inte- grate those factors into the HCM pedestrian level of service (LOS) methodology. • Determine how pedestrian safety improvements on the roadway and in signal timing designs should be reflected in the HCM pedestrian LOS. • Recommend corresponding enhancements to the current HCM methodology. In addition to developing new and updated HCM methods, the project also developed this guide, to summarize the available knowledge related to the project objectives and provide methods and tools for evaluating pedestrian flow and estimating pedestrian quality and LOS. Phase 1 of the project consisted of an extensive literature review and interviews with staff from a range of state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governments as well as leaders from TRB’s Standing Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service and Standing Committee on Pedestrians. On the basis of the gaps identified in knowledge and preferences expressed by participants in stakeholder interviews, a draft work plan for Phase 2 was presented to the project’s oversight panel and discussed at a face-to-face meeting. Phase 2 of the project involved original research in the highest-priority areas identified by the stakeholders and panel. Research topics included a three-pronged approach to assessing pedes- trian satisfaction with selected safety countermeasures [median islands, rectangular rapid-flashing beacons, and leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs)] through the use of (a) pedestrian surveys, (b) video observations, and (c) a naturalistic walking study. Other research involved updating the HCM’s pedestrian delay methods to address issues identified through the literature review and evaluating and testing different methods for evaluating pedestrian QOS at a network level. Given the broad scope of this project, this guide draws heavily from the literature review in describing the state of the practice in pedestrian volume counting, pedestrian safety analysis, pedestrian operations analysis, and pedestrian QOS analysis. At the same time, new knowledge developed by the project is also incorporated into the guide wherever possible. Readers inter- ested in learning more about the research that led to the development of this guide are referred to NCHRP Web-Only Document 312: Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities (20), the final report for NCHRP 17-87. References 1. National Household Travel Survey. 2017. Popular Person Trips (PT) Statistics. https://nhts.ornl.gov/person-trips (as of April 7, 2020). 2. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. 1971. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Envi- ronmental Planners, New York. 3. Pushkarev, B., and J. M. Zupan. 1975. Urban Space for Pedestrians: A Report of the Regional Plan Association. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge.

4 Guide to Pedestrian Analysis 4. Transportation Research Board. 1985. Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC. 5. Transportation Research Board. 2000. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC. 6. Rouphail, N. M., J. E. Hummer, J. S. Milazzo II, and D. P. Allen. 1998. Recommended Procedures for Chap- ter 9, Signalized Intersections, of the Highway Capacity Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-106. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 7. Rouphail, N. M., J. E. Hummer, J. S. Milazzo II, and D. P. Allen. 1998. Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Recommended Procedures for the “Pedestrians” Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-107. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 8. Transportation Research Board. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Washington, DC. 9. Hummer, J. E., N. M. Rouphail, J. L. Toole, R. S. Patten, R. J. Schneider, J. S. Green, R. G. Hughes, and S. J. Fain. 2006. Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared-Use Paths. Final Report. Report FHWA- HRT-05-137. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 10. Landis, B. W., V. R. Vattikuti, R. M. Ottenberg, D. S. McLeod, and M. Guttenplan. 2001. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, pp. 82–88. 11. Florida Department of Transportation. 2013. Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Tallahassee. 12. Dowling, R. G., D. B. Reinke, A. Flannery, P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, T. A. Petritsch, B. W. Landis, N. M. Rouphail, and J. A. Bonneson. 2008. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 13. Alta Planning + Design. 2010. National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation Project: Instructions. http:// bikepeddocumentation.org/application/files/3314/6671/8088/NBPD_Instructions_2010.pdf (as of April  7, 2020). 14. Federal Highway Administration. 2016. Traffic Monitoring Guide. Report FHWA-PL-17-003. U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, Washington, DC. 15. Ryus, P., E. Ferguson, K. M. Laustsen, R. J. Schneider, F. R. Proulx, T. Hull, and L. Miranda-Moreno. 2014. NCHRP Report 797: Guidebook on Pedestrian and Bicycle Volume Data Collection. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 16. Fitzpatrick, K., S. M. Turner, M. Brewer, P. J. Carlson, B. Ullman, N. D. Trout, E. S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and D. Lord. 2006. TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 17. Turner, S., I. Sener, M. Martin, L. D. White, S. Das, R. Hampshire, M. Colety, K. Fitzpatrick, and R. Wijesundera. 2018. Guide for Scalable Risk Assessment Methods for Pedestrians and Bicyclists. Report FHWA-SA-18-032. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. 18. Zegeer, C. V., D. Nabors, P. Lagerwey, C. Sundstrom, D. Lovas, T. Huber, R. J. Eldridge, and M. Bushell. 2013. PEDSAFE: Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/index.cfm (as of April 7, 2020). 19. Thomas, L., L. Sandt, C. Zegeer, W. Kumfer, K. Lang, B. Lan, Z. Horowitz, A. Butsick, J. Toole, and R. J. Schneider. 2018. NCHRP Research Report 893: Systemic Pedestrian Safety Analysis. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 20. Ryus, P., A. Musunuru, K. Lausten, J. Bonneson, S. Kothuri, C. Monsere, N. McNeil, K. Nordback, S. LaJeunesse, W. Kumfer, L. Thomas, and S. I. Guler. 2022. NCHRP Web-Only Document 312: Enhancing Pedestrian Volume Estimation and Developing HCM Pedestrian Methodologies for Safe and Sustainable Communities. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.