Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:


Pages 13-23

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 13...
... 13 Chapter 2. State of the Practice Introduction This chapter provides information about the state of the practice related to pedestrian volume and exposure estimation, pedestrian operations analysis, pedestrian QOS analysis, and the relationship between pedestrian safety countermeasures and QOS, as identified through a literature review and stakeholder interviews.
From page 14...
... 14 Three types of models are discussed in NCHRP Report 770 (Kuzmyak et al.
From page 15...
... 15 Table 2-3. Key Factors Affecting Pedestrian Speed.
From page 16...
... 16 Table 2-4. Effects of Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures on Pedestrian Operations and LOS at Intersections.
From page 17...
... 17 Assessment of HCM 6th Edition Methods This research team reviewed the pedestrian analysis methods in the HCM 6th Edition, including the method's research basis, the sensitivity of the LOS result to the required inputs, and the challenges associated with the existing HCM methods. The full review is presented as part of the literature review in Appendix A
From page 18...
... 18 treatment that will produce much of an effect on the segment LOS score. The model was developed from ratings of pedestrian facilities along urban and suburban collector and arterial streets; it is unknown how pedestrian ratings might differ for local streets or in rural areas.
From page 19...
... 19 Table 2-5. Interviewee Response Rate by Organization Type.
From page 20...
... 20 Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Nearly all of those interviewed either directly implemented pedestrian safety countermeasures to some degree, or were involved in planning or making recommendations for countermeasures. The most commonly used countermeasures mentioned by the interviewees were:  Intersections: Changing signal timing (particularly implementing LPIs and exclusive pedestrian phases)
From page 21...
... 21 methods were used by one or two interviewees. Reasons given for not measuring QOS were varied, but included doubts about its usefulness or necessity, data intensiveness, specific issues with HCM methods, a lack of pedestrian volumes to justify performing evaluations, and the lack of agency requirements to study pedestrian conditions.
From page 22...
... 22 The needs to be addressed were identified by starting with the known gaps in knowledge listed in the project's Request for Proposals and Amplified Work Plan. These needs were supplemented with new insights gained through the literature review and then developed into "research activities," individual problem statements addressing one or (usually)
From page 23...
... 23  Highly Ranked Activities. This package would have addressed a variety of research activities that were highly ranked by the stakeholders interviewed, but with less focus and detail compared to the first two packages.

Key Terms



This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.