IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/transa/v73y2015icp113-124.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of land-use

Author

Listed:
  • Kadali, B Raghuram
  • Vedagiri, P.

Abstract

In India pedestrians usually cross the road at mid-block crosswalks due to ease of access to their destination or the development of adjacent land use types such as shopping, business areas, school and residential areas. The behaviour of pedestrian will change with respect to different land use type and this change in behaviour of pedestrian further reflects change in perceived level of service (LOS). So, it is important to evaluate the quality of service of such crossing facilities with respect to different land-use type under mixed traffic conditions. In this framework, pedestrian perceived LOS were collected with respect to different land-use type such as shopping, residential and business areas. The ordered probit (OP) model was developed by using NLOGIT software package, with number of vehicles encountered, road crossing difficulty as well as safety considered as primary factors along with pedestrian individual factors (gender and age), land-use type and roadway geometry. From the model results, it has been concluded that perceived safety, crossing difficulty, land-use condition, number of vehicles encountered, median width and number of lanes have significant effect on pedestrian perceived LOS at unprotected (un-signalized) mid-block crosswalks in mixed traffic scenario. The inferences of these results highlights the importance of land use planning in designing a new set of pedestrian access facilities for unprotected mid-block crosswalks under mixed traffic conditions. Also the study results would be useful for evaluating pedestrian accessibility taking into account different land-use type and planning required degree of segregation with vehicular movement at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations.

Suggested Citation

  • Kadali, B Raghuram & Vedagiri, P., 2015. "Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of land-use," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 113-124.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:73:y:2015:i:c:p:113-124
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856415000178
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Buehler, Ralph, 2011. "Determinants of transport mode choice: a comparison of Germany and the USA," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 19(4), pages 644-657.
    2. Eric Dumbaugh & Wenhao Li, 2011. "Designing for the Safety of Pedestrians, Cyclists, and Motorists in Urban Environments," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(1), pages 69-88.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alvaro Rodriguez-Valencia & Jose Agustin Vallejo-Borda & German A. Barrero & Hernan Alberto Ortiz-Ramirez, 2022. "Towards an enriched framework of service evaluation for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure: acknowledging the power of users’ perceptions," Transportation, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 791-814, June.
    2. Rahul, T.M. & Manoj, M., 2020. "Categorization of pedestrian level of service perceptions and accounting its response heterogeneity and latent correlation on travel decisions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 40-55.
    3. Tanja Congiu & Giovanni Sotgiu & Paolo Castiglia & Antonio Azara & Andrea Piana & Laura Saderi & Marco Dettori, 2019. "Built Environment Features and Pedestrian Accidents: An Italian Retrospective Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, February.
    4. Haris Murwadi & Bart Dewancker, 2017. "Study of Quassessment Model for Campus Pedestrian Ways, Case Study: Sidewalk of the University of Lampung," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-16, December.
    5. Cheng, Zeyang & Wang, Wei & Lu, Jian & Xing, Xue, 2020. "Classifying the traffic state of urban expressways: A machine-learning approach," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 411-428.
    6. Sharifi, Mohammad Sadra & Christensen, Keith & Chen, Anthony & Song, Ziqi, 2019. "Exploring effects of environment density on heterogeneous populations’ level of service perceptions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 115-127.
    7. Duncan, Michael, 2023. "The influence of pedestrian plans on walk commuting in US municipalities," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Qihao Liu & Yuzheng Liu & Chia-Lin Chen & Enrica Papa & Yantao Ling & Mengqiu Cao, 2023. "Is It Possible to Compete With Car Use? How Buses Can Facilitate Sustainable Transport," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(3), pages 69-83.
    2. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    3. Jaroslav Burian & Lenka Zajíčková & Igor Ivan & Karel Macků, 2018. "Attitudes and Motivation to Use Public or Individual Transport: A Case Study of Two Middle-Sized Cities," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-25, May.
    4. Tanya Suhoy & Yotam Sofer, 2019. "Getting to Work in Israel: Locality and Individual Effects," Bank of Israel Working Papers 2019.02, Bank of Israel.
    5. Duque, Ricardo B. & Gray, David & Harrison, Mariah & Davey, Elizabeth, 2014. "Invisible commuters: assessing a university’s eco-friendly transportation policies and commuting behaviours," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 122-136.
    6. Bereitschaft, Bradley, 2020. "Gentrification and the evolution of commuting behavior within America's urban cores, 2000–2015," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    7. Ingvardson, Jesper Bláfoss & Nielsen, Otto Anker, 2018. "How urban density, network topology and socio-economy influence public transport ridership: Empirical evidence from 48 European metropolitan areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 50-63.
    8. Echeverría, Lucía & Giménez-Nadal, J. Ignacio & Alberto Molina, José, 2022. "Who uses green mobility? Exploring profiles in developed countries," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 247-265.
    9. repec:zbw:rwirep:0385 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Seán Schmitz & Sophia Becker & Laura Weiand & Norman Niehoff & Frank Schwartzbach & Erika von Schneidemesser, 2019. "Determinants of Public Acceptance for Traffic-Reducing Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    11. Maurici Ruiz-Pérez & Joana Maria Seguí-Pons, 2020. "Transport Mode Choice for Residents in a Tourist Destination: The Long Road to Sustainability (the Case of Mallorca, Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-31, November.
    12. Mohammad Javad Koohsari & Rachel Cole & Koichiro Oka & Ai Shibata & Akitomo Yasunaga & Tomoya Hanibuchi & Neville Owen & Takemi Sugiyama, 2020. "Associations of built environment attributes with bicycle use for transport," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(9), pages 1745-1757, November.
    13. Vivien Procher & Colin Vance, 2012. "Heterogeneity in the Correlates of Motorized and Non-Motorized Travel in Germany – The Intervening Role of Gender," Ruhr Economic Papers 0314, Rheinisch-Westfälisches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Universität Dortmund, Universität Duisburg-Essen.
    14. Tilov, Ivan & Weber, Sylvain, 2023. "Heterogeneity in price elasticity of vehicle kilometers traveled: Evidence from micro-level panel data," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(PA).
    15. Laurent GOMEZ, 2024. "La mobilité quotidienne des immigrés en France," Region et Developpement, Region et Developpement, LEAD, Universite du Sud - Toulon Var, vol. 59, pages 79-107.
    16. Basheer, Muhammad Aamir & van der Waerden, Peter & Kochan, Bruno & Bellemans, Tom & Raheel Shah, Syyed Adnan, 2019. "Multi-stage trips: An exploration of factors affecting mode combination choice of travelers in England," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 95-105.
    17. Teoh, Roger & Anciaes, Paulo & Jones, Peter, 2020. "Urban mobility transitions through GDP growth: Policy choices facing cities in developing countries," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    18. Chiou, Yu-Chiun & Jou, Rong-Chang & Yang, Cheng-Han, 2015. "Factors affecting public transportation usage rate: Geographically weighted regression," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 161-177.
    19. Borkowski, Przemysław & Jażdżewska-Gutta, Magdalena & Szmelter-Jarosz, Agnieszka, 2021. "Lockdowned: Everyday mobility changes in response to COVID-19," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    20. Homolka, Lubor & Ngo, Vu Minh & Pavelková, Drahomíra & Le, Bach Tuan & Dehning, Bruce, 2020. "Short- and medium-term car registration forecasting based on selected macro and socio-economic indicators in European countries," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    21. Chakrabarti, Sandip, 2017. "How can public transit get people out of their cars? An analysis of transit mode choice for commute trips in Los Angeles," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 80-89.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:transa:v:73:y:2015:i:c:p:113-124. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/547/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.