IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i12p4891-d371908.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pedestrian Road Crossing at Uncontrolled Mid-Block Locations: Does the Refuge Island Increase Risk?

Author

Listed:
  • Wafaa Saleh

    (College of Engineering, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 84428, Saudi Arabia
    Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK
    Visiting Professor.)

  • Monika Grigorova

    (Transport Research Institute, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh EH10 5DT, UK)

  • Samia Elattar

    (Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, College of Engineering, Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 84428, Saudi Arabia
    Department of Industrial Engineering, Alexandria Higher Institute of Engineering and Technology (AIET), Alex 21311, Egypt)

Abstract

The study investigates the behaviour of pedestrians crossing a road with a refuge island in an urban area to assess whether refuge islands deliver their expected benefit. This type of pedestrian crossings aims at providing a half-way shelter and protection while pedestrians are crossing a road with two-traffic streams. Data has been collected using two video cameras from an urban location in Edinburgh on gaps in traffic flow, rejected and accepted gaps, and critical gaps of pedestrians while crossing from the curb or the median. Data have also been examined to estimate and assess vehicle and pedestrians’ speeds, vehicle type, waiting time, group size and other demographic characteristics of pedestrians. The statistical modelling techniques used include Multiple Linear Regression and Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE). The results show that the critical gap for crossing from the median to the curb is much shorter than that from the curb to the median. Pedestrians appear to be less cautious when crossing from the median to the curb as they are more likely to accept a shorter gap in traffic. This could indicate a shortfall in the design and/or operation of this type of crossing. Further considerations and investigation of what measures could be implemented to enhance safety and reduce risky behaviour at this type of crossing are recommended and certainly encouraged.

Suggested Citation

  • Wafaa Saleh & Monika Grigorova & Samia Elattar, 2020. "Pedestrian Road Crossing at Uncontrolled Mid-Block Locations: Does the Refuge Island Increase Risk?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-16, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4891-:d:371908
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4891/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/12/4891/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sanghamitra Das & Charles F. Manski & Mark D. Manuszak, 2005. "Walk or wait? An empirical analysis of street crossing decisions," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 529-548, May.
    2. G. Yannis & E. Papadimitriou & A. Theofilatos, 2013. "Pedestrian gap acceptance for mid-block street crossing," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(5), pages 450-462, July.
    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. Ran Zhang & Zhonghua Wei & Heng Gu & Shi Qiu, 2021. "Behavior Evolution of Multi-Group in the Process of Pedestrian Crossing Based on Evolutionary Game Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.

    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. Jiaming Shi & Changxu Wu & Xiuying Qian, 2020. "The Effects of Multiple Factors on Elderly Pedestrians’ Speed Perception and Stopping Distance Estimation of Approaching Vehicles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-16, June.
    2. Kun Wang & Liang Xu & Han Jiang, 2022. "Analysis of the Effect of Human-Machine Co-Driving Vehicle on Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Uncontrolled Mid-Block Road Sections: A VR-Based Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-12, June.
    3. Yang, Jianguo & Deng, Wen & Wang, Jinmei & Li, Qingfeng & Wang, Zhaoan, 2006. "Modeling pedestrians' road crossing behavior in traffic system micro-simulation in China," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 280-290, March.
    4. Chen, Qun & Wang, Yan, 2015. "Cellular automata (CA) simulation of the interaction of vehicle flows and pedestrian crossings on urban low-grade uncontrolled roads," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 432(C), pages 43-57.
    5. Ran Zhang & Zhonghua Wei & Heng Gu & Shi Qiu, 2021. "Behavior Evolution of Multi-Group in the Process of Pedestrian Crossing Based on Evolutionary Game Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Avineri, Erel & Shinar, David & Susilo, Yusak O., 2011. "Pedestrians’ behaviour in cross walks: The effects of fear of falling and age," Working papers in Transport Economics 2011:18, CTS - Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm (KTH and VTI).
    7. Nam Seok Kim & Seung Sub Yoon & Donghyung Yook, 2017. "Performance comparison between pedestrian push-button and pre-timed pedestrian crossings at midblock: a Korean case study," Transportation Planning and Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 706-721, August.
    8. Arshad Jamal & Muhammad Ijaz & Meshal Almosageah & Hassan M. Al-Ahmadi & Muhammad Zahid & Irfan Ullah & Rabia Emhamed Al Mamlook, 2022. "Implementing the Maximum Likelihood Method for Critical Gap Estimation under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-13, November.
    9. Lachapelle, Ugo & Cloutier, Marie-Soleil, 2017. "On the complexity of finishing a crossing on time: Elderly pedestrians, timing and cycling infrastructure," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 54-63.
    10. Nadine Schuurman & Blake Byron Walker & David Swanlund & Ofer Amram & Natalie L. Yanchar, 2020. "Qualitative Field Observation of Pedestrian Injury Hotspots: A Mixed-Methods Approach for Developing Built- and Socioeconomic-Environmental Risk Signatures," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-15, March.
    11. Raul Almeida & Emanuel Sousa & Dário Machado & Frederico Pereira & Susana Faria & Elisabete Freitas, 2024. "Analysis of the Interaction between Humans and Autonomous Vehicles Equipped with External Human–Machine Interfaces: The Effect of an Experimental Reward Mechanism on Pedestrian Crossing Behavior in a ," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-23, April.
    12. Dirk Helbing & Lubos Buzna & Anders Johansson & Torsten Werner, 2005. "Self-Organized Pedestrian Crowd Dynamics: Experiments, Simulations, and Design Solutions," Transportation Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(1), pages 1-24, February.
    13. Savvas Emmanouilidis & Socrates Basbas & Alexandros Sdoukopoulos & Ioannis Politis, 2022. "Settlements along Main Road Axes: Blessing or Curse? Evaluating the Barrier Effect in a Small Greek Settlement," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Yu, Chunhui & Ma, Wanjing & Lo, Hong K. & Yang, Xiaoguang, 2015. "Optimization of mid-block pedestrian crossing network with discrete demands," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 103-121.
    15. Wang, Yan & Peng, Zhongyi & Chen, Qun, 2018. "Simulated interactions of pedestrian crossings and motorized vehicles in residential areas," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 490(C), pages 1046-1060.
    16. P S, Karthika & Verma, Ashish, 2023. "Evaluating the gap choice decisions of pedestrians in conflict situations in mass religious gatherings and controlled experimental setup – A pilot study," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    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:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:12:p:4891-:d:371908. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.