Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Signalized Intersection-3 - MM - Formated - Last Version

University of Ruse Angel Kanchev
70 Years
Facing Knowledge, Youth and Future
_______________________________________________
RUSE, BULGARIA
Analysis of pedestrian crossing speed at Signalized and Non-Signalized crosswalk.
(A case Study of Central Station to Str. Tzar Osvobotiel road of Ruse City)
By: Sudeep Thapa
(SO144322)
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

ENGINEERING
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERING
DEPARMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
RUSE ,BULGARIA
JUNE 2015
-0-
COPYRIGHT
The author has agreed that the library, Department of Transportation Engineering,
Central Campus, University of Ruse may make this thesis freely available for
inspection. Moreover, the author has agreed that permission for extensive copying of
this thesis for scholarly purpose may be granted by the professor(s) who supervised
the work recorded herein or, in their absence, by the Head of the Department
wherein the thesis was done. It is understood that the recognition will be given to the
author of this thesis and to the Department of Transportation Engineering and
University of Ruse in any use of the material of this thesis. Copying or publication
or the other use of this thesis for financial gain without approval of the Department
of Transportation engineering, University of Ruse and author’s written permission is
prohibited.
Request for permission to copy or to make any other use of the material in this
thesis in whole or in part should be addressed to:
Head
Department of Transportation
University of Ruse
Ruse, Bulgaria
-1-
UNIVERSITY OF RUSE,
RUSE, BULGARIA
The undersigned certify that they have read and recommended to the Institute of
Engineering for acceptance, a thesis entitled “Analysis of pedestrian crossing speed
at Signalized and Non-Signalized crosswalk.: (A case Study of Central Station to
Str. Tzar Osvobotiel road of Ruse City)" submitted by Sudeep Thapa (SO144322)
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in
Transportation Engineering.
Supervisor:
Dr. Mitko Marinov
External Examiner:
Program Coordinator:
Date: June 2015
-2-
ABSTRACT
Pedestrians are vulnerable road users, and they are always at risk when making
their daily trips. Hence, roadway design and traffic control devices need to
consider pedestrians’ safety. Pedestrian walking speed is fundamental to any
roadway and traffic control design. Here, Pedestrian crossing behavior is
analyzed in order to find the proper location to insert the pedestrian crossing
facilities, as well as to improve the safety while crossing the road. Unfortunately,
no special guidelines exist for pedestrian crossing speed in Bulgaria. The
ultimate goals of this research are to establish the local pedestrian crossing speed,
their variation based on age group and on gender and to identify the contributing
factors. A total of 1353 samples on pedestrian crossing speed were collected at
signalized and non-signalized crosswalks. The analysis shows that crosswalk
type, age and gender significantly contribute to pedestrian speed in Bulgaria
(Ruse city).The study showed that pedestrians at Signalized crosswalk have
significantly faster crossing speed than at Non-signalized crosswalk. The result
showed that children and adult pedestrians are the fastest group, and elderly
pedestrians are the slowest group in terms of pedestrian crossing speed. In case
of non-signalized crosswalk it is found that the Female adult group are found the
slower not only in comparison with male adult group but also from the male and
female child group. Moreover, male pedestrians have significantly faster crossing
speed than female pedestrians do.
Keywords: walking speed, crossing speed, Signalized crosswalk, Non-

signalized crosswalk
-3-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I’m indebted to several persons who have helped me in various ways during the
thesis period.
I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

Mitko Marinov for his valuable guidance, constant inspiration and encouragement.
It was an honor to work under his supervision.
I’m grateful to Assistant professor Svilen Kostadinov, Assistant professor Pavel

Stoyanov, Assistant Professor Vesela Mihova and Assistant Professor Mikhail
Milchev for their valuable suggestions, support and kind cooperation in
continuing this research work.
I’m also very thankful for the precious support during the completion of this
research to my helping Sister Samrita Thapa and friends Miten Matev, Magdalina
Benina, Maggie Asp, Rostislav Kandilarov, Kalin Krastev and Corina Pista,.
Last but not the least my friends from Bulgaria and all the people who are directly
or indirectly involved in this project deserve special thanks for their kind interest
and support in my research.
Sudeep Thapa
SO144322
June 2015
-4-
ABBREVIATION
PCU Passenger Car Unit
LOS Level of Service
Km Kilometre
m Meter
m/s Meter per second
ft/sec Feet per second
S Seconds
DOF Degree of Freedom
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
STATA Data analysis Statistical Software
-5-
Table of contents
COPYRIGHT ................................................................................................................. 1
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................. 4
ABBREVIATION .......................................................................................................... 5
Table of contents ............................................................................................................ 6
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 8
1.1 Background:....................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Problem Definition .......................................................................................... 10
1.3 Research Question ........................................................................................... 12
1.4 Research Objective .......................................................................................... 12
1.5 Limitation of Study .......................................................................................... 13
1.6 Organization of Report .................................................................................... 13
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION ..................................... 22
3.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................ 25
3.2 Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed............................................................... 25
3.2.1 Study Location ................................................................................................. 25
Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 33
4.1Bulgarian Pedestrian Speed ................................................................................. 35
4.2Contributing factors ............................................................................................. 35
4.2.1Crosswalk type. ................................................................................................. 35
4.2.2.Age ................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.3Gender ............................................................................................................... 40
4.3 Comparison of pedestrian crossing speed with other countries.......................... 42
4.4 Cumulative Speed Distribution Curve ................................................................ 43
-6-
4.5 Statistical analysis for the observed data ............................................................ 45
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ......................................... 49
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 52
Appendix 1: Pantawa Crosswalk ................................................................................. 54
Appendix 2: Borishawa 1St Crosswalk ......................................................................... 57
Appendix 3: Borishawa 2nd Crosswalk ........................................................................ 59
Appendix 4: Lipnik and Souln Cross ........................................................................... 61
Appendix 5: Tsar Osvobotiel and Panaiot Hitov cross ............................................... 64
Appendix 6: Mall Rousse Cross ................................................................................... 69
Appendix 7: Olimp Cross............................................................................................. 75
Appendix 8: Alexandra Street ...................................................................................... 81
-7-
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background:
A pedestrian is a person travelling on foot, whether walking or running. In some

places people travelling with rollers, skaters, scooters and tiny wheel are also
considered as pedestrian. But in Transportation research and analysis, this term is
referred for only those who are walking on a road or pavement. In all over the
Country, the Traffic police Division has expressed serious concern about increasing
number of road accidents involving pedestrian in recent days in the crosswalk and has
appealed all to take extra precaution while travelling in the road. Crosswalks are
designated portions on a roadway to assist pedestrian desiring to cross it. They play a
significant role in the safety and mobility performance of signalized intersection.
Pedestrian-vehicle conflict is considered as one of the most common safety problems
at intersections. By understanding pedestrian behavior at signalized crosswalk and
identifying the influencing factors upon their behavior are essential to pedestrian
safety assessment. Additionally, it helps improve the efficiency of operational
policies at signalized intersection.
This unsafely problem and accident problem is even more worse in Non-signalized
crosswalk, at least in signalized crosswalk both for pedestrian traffic and motor traffic
the time is allocated, but in case of non-signalized crosswalk being more careful is
only one option to reduce or to say for the accident not to be happened.
The operational efficiency of vehicular traffic and pedestrian flow are considered as
important concern especially at crosswalk where both have to share same space.
Crosswalks play a role in the performance of intersections. Their geometry and
configuration including width, position and angle affect directly the safety, cycle
-8-
length and resulting delays for all users. Here when crosswalk width decreases, the
required minimum pedestrian crossing time increase due to the bi-directional
pedestrian flow effects, which leads to longer cycle length and vice versa. So in order
to avoid such situation it is significant to define reasonable geometric characteristics
(width and position), which can optimize the overall performance of the crosswalk.
Considering the crosswalk position, existing manuals do not provide universal

rational specifications on where and how crosswalks should be positioned. In Japan,
position of crosswalk is far from the intersection whereas, in case of USA the
crosswalks are positioned at the corners of the intersection and in case of England and
France they have Z-shaped crosswalk.
On considering the crosswalk width, we all know that from the viewpoint of
pedestrians, wider crosswalks are better since it provides wider space and fewer
interactions between opposing pedestrian, however this may negatively affect the
overall operational performance. MUTCD in the USA recommends a minimum
crosswalk width of 1.8m. Meanwhile the Japanese Manual on Road Marking
recommends a crosswalk width of 4.0m and allows installation of crosswalk up to
3.0m wide when pedestrian demand is expected to be low.
It is considered that among the road users, Pedestrian are considered as the most
vulnerable road users. In order to generate the awareness, many awareness program
are being launching all over the world. The awareness program has been successful in
controlling the problem involving the two wheelers. But still we need to give much
more attention for the Pedestrian group. As the number of the Pedestrian accident is
increasing, this problem needs to be addressed urgently. One of the main reason that
attributed to the high numbers of pedestrian accident is due to careless crossing. This
may be due to insufficient time to cross safely, gross carelessness or other unexpected
-9-
factors. To tackle this problem, one of the alternatives is to consider pedestrian
crossing speed in roadway design and operation.
Unfortunately. There is no specific guidelines exist for pedestrian crossing speed in

Bulgaria. According to HCM, it is noted that the road users having speed less than
10Km/hr are considered as pedestrian. Since Speed is a factor that distinguishes
walking from running. Although walking speeds can vary greatly depending on a
multitude of factors such as height, weight, age, terrain, surface, load, culture, effort,
and fitness, the average human walking speed is about 5Km/hr. Specific studies have
found Pedestrian walking speeds ranging from 4.51 Km/hr to 4.75 Km/hr for older
individuals and from 5.32 Km/hr to 5.43 Km/hr for younger individuals. So we can
say that different individuals have different speed, so to enhance pedestrian safety, a
research must be carried out to determine the pedestrian crossing speed In Ruse and
the factors contributing to the crossing speed.
The main objective for this study is to determine the Bulgarian Pedestrian crossing
speed for both signalized and non-signalized crosswalks, and to study the contributing
factors that affect the crossing speed.
1.2. Problem Definition
Pedestrianisation has become an integral part of sustainable modern urban design.

People nowadays prefer to walk then to ride a motor vehicle if their destination place
is nearby and also in many core city areas the movement of the motor vehicle is
prohibited except the public transit due to which many people have to walk in the
street though they own their own vehicle. So obviously if there is many pedestrian
traffic the crosswalk should be designed in a most efficient and appropriate way for
this the design, arrangement and development of support infrastructure should be
favor of pedestrian movement. To achieve so, pedestrian facilities should be planned
and based on the concrete information on user characteristics, travelling pattern and
- 10 -
behavior of pedestrian while crossing. The facilities also need to be harmonized with
ambient factors that affect the safe, convenience and secure movements of
pedestrians. Similarly, Traffic accidents involving pedestrians have become a major
safety problem all over the world, particularly in developing countries, due to high
population density, rapid urbanization and lack of adherence to traffic regulations by
both drivers and pedestrian. It is believed that the traffic death has come to the 3 rd
position as the cause of the death.
Due to poor or say lack of knowledge of the traffic regulations at pedestrian crossing
particularly by drivers as well as the attitude creates a situation due to which the
pedestrian may become bold and force the fast approaching vehicle to brake in order
to gain the priority to cross the road. On the other hand if the pedestrian start to do
this frequently it will cause the unacceptable vehicular delay. Due to this reason
Pedestrian are consider as one of the major cause of the traffic accident. So, there is a
special need to analyze the crossing behavior of pedestrian to ensure their safety on
the road.
In Ruse, the rise in vehicular volume over the years and subsequent increase in
vehicular speeds have rendered the road unsafe for crossing at intersection. So it is
essential to understand the condition of current facilities so as it make necessary
change to make safe pedestrian crossing. A very effective tool for doing this is to
understand the level of service offered by the facility. To make the safe pedestrian
crossing, crossing infrastructure should be design based on the local user’s
characteristics. The crossing infrastructure refers to the crossing length and width,
crossing position in case of non-signalized crossing and in case of signalized crossing,
crossing length and width, crossing position and the signal timing (pedestrian green
time).
- 11 -
The crossing speed of 4 ft/sec (1.219m/sec) is recommended in Highway Capacity
Manual, 2000 for pedestrian on crossing and blindly believing this value the
crosswalks in the city Ruse had been inserted in the street and still being constructed.
However, this might not be appropriate for Bulgaria but nobody tries to find it
whether the value chosen 1.219m/s as pedestrian speed is appropriate for the
Crosswalk design or not. .
1.3 Research Question
It is necessary to know the crossing speed of different group of pedestrian while

designing the signal at intersection. It is normally think that the male pedestrian walk
faster than the Female pedestrian and the elderly group are the slowest group if
considering the age category. So before designing any type of pedestrian facilities the
speed of different types of the pedestrian need to be known. Generally, Speed is
chosen as internationally standard but which is no favorable in our situation. So it is
necessary to determine crossing speed of pedestrian in our situation.
Based on above discussion, this research tries to answer following questions:
1. What is a crossing speed of Pedestrian while crossing a road?
2. What are the contributing Factors which affect the crossing speed of Pedestrian?
1.4. Research Objective
The aim of this research is to analyze and determine the mean pedestrian crossing
speed as well as the lowest (15th percentile) and highest (85th percentile) speed limit
of the pedestrian at signalized and Non-signalized crosswalk of the Ruse City as well
as how the speed varies when there is a pedestrian signal in crosswalk and when there
is no signal in the crosswalk as well as how the speed varies with the age of the
pedestrian and with the gender type of pedestrian.
The following are considered as the sub objectives:

- 12 -
 To analyze the crossing speed of Pedestrian in both Signalized crosswalk and in Non-
signalized crosswalk.
 To determine the contributing factor which affects crossing speed of pedestrian.
1.5 Limitation of Study
The frequency of pedestrian accident is increasing day by day. Pedestrian are

suffering while crossing the road which may be due to various factors which we will
discuss in this paper. This paper can be one of the imports for improving the crossway
condition and provide necessary information for designing the signal timing at
intersection as well as for the designing of speed breakers before the crossing.
There are certain limitations in this paper which are:
 The choice of the study location and observation of only weekday might generate bias
result.
 Data taken may not be sufficient for analyze which may not give satisfactory result.
 Data was taken only in the normal working day (i.e. the data was not taken in rainy,
foggy type of climate).
The following Pedestrian behavior will not be observed:
o Running
o Crossing Diagonally
o Stopping and resting
1.6 Organization of Report
This report is organized into 5 chapters. A brief presentation about the topic has been
presented in Chapter One. Second chapter contains a detailed review of literature
regarding the works that were done in the past in pedestrian crossing speed and level
- 13 -
of service of crosswalk. Chapter third is about methodology and data collection,
which methodology was used and what kind of data were collected. Chapter four
describes data analysis and result which were achieved. Finally chapter five gives
the conclusion of work done and some recommendation.
- 14 -
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The pedestrian task for crossing and intersection can be described as including the
following process: expectation, perception, detection, cognition, selection, action,
and reaction visual acuity and color perception are the main processing skills
required to make safe judgments about when to cross the street at the crosswalk..
The walking speed and/or walking time of pedestrians are of prime importance in
studying the operation and design of pedestrian facilities. Many studies had been
carried out which provides that the demographic characteristics like age and gender
directly influence on the road crossing behavior of the pedestrian. Oxley et al.
1997: Lobjois and cavallo, 2007 had carried out the detailed experiments in order
to find out the effect of age on the road crossing behavior of the pedestrian with
respect to the vehicle distance and the speed of the approaching vehicle.
Macroscopic approaches have been widely employed to analyze pedestrian speed
such as in Navin and Wheeler (1969), Fruin (1971), Highway Capacity Manual
(2010). However, compared to walkway and sidewalk, few studies addressed the
issue of pedestrian walking speed at signalized crosswalks under the intersection
geometry and operation.
Harkey, 1995: explores the problems of older drivers and pedestrians at

intersections. The author noted that the elderly pedestrians were the main cause of
the traffic accidents. The author focused the main causes for accidents results from
slower walking speeds: lack of understanding that vehicles may turn during their
walk interval: inability to react quickly enough to avoid turning vehicles: reduced
vision and too much reliance on the pedestrian signal alone.
Some of the studies have also explored the importance of the pedestrian speed at
different locations, such as the Zebra crossing location (Varhelvi, 1998) and
signalized intersection (Tarawnch, 2001).
- 15 -
Shahin, 2006; carried out a study to identify the pedestrian behavior in mixed
traffic street and have developed a micro-simulation model in order to find out the
fundamental characteristics as well as the conflicts of the pedestrian movement.
Shi et al. 2007: carried out a study in Beijing to investigate the pedestrian
behaviour and traffic characteristics at Non-signalized midblock crosswalk and
figured it out the pedestrian speed changes with the pedestrian behavior. Kadali
and Vedagiri, 2013: had identified the importance of the environmental
characteristics, such as type of crossing facility, traffic volume and roadway
geometry on the road crossing behavior of the pedestrian and also some studies
carried out by Gupta et al. 2010: have explored the pedestrian road crossing
behavior before and after the re-construction of traffic facility.
Tarawneh (2001) analyzed pedestrian walking speeds at various pedestrian

facilities in Jordan. He found that pedestrian walking speeds at walkways,
sidewalks and crosswalks are significantly different. Age, gender, group size and
street width are considered as important factors in defining average pedestrian
walking speeds.
Montufar et al. (2007) analyzed the difference of pedestrian walking speeds at

sidewalks and signalized crosswalks. The effects of seasonality, age and gender of
pedestrians were discussed. It concluded that pedestrian walking speeds at
crosswalks are significantly different from those on sidewalks at a 95% confidence
level. In general, pedestrians walk faster at crosswalk compared to on sidewalk and
walkway.
Lam and Cheung (2000) studied pedestrian walking speeds at different walking
facilities. They found that pedestrian free-flow speeds at outdoor walkways were
lower than that at signalized crosswalks by 17%. It shows that the surrounding
conditions of signalized crosswalks, e.g., the existence of turning vehicles, make
pedestrians walk faster to clear the crosswalk.
- 16 -
Goh et al. (2012) analyzed pedestrian walking speed at signalized crosswalks and
Non-signalized crosswalks in Malaysia. They found that pedestrians at Non-
signalized crosswalk had significantly higher crossing speed than at signalized
crosswalk. Age and gender are significant influencing factors of pedestrian
crossing speed.
Asano et al. (2013) analyzed the pedestrian walking speeds during PFG. It was
found that the crosswalk length and the distance to crosswalk from the instant
pedestrian positions at the onset of PFG had positive impacts to pedestrian walking
speeds. Because pedestrians had limited time to cross during PFG, they increase
their speeds especially when provided longer crosswalk or shorter entering time. In
addition, higher pedestrian demands result in lower pedestrian walking speeds.
Xin ZHANG et. al. 2013: carried out a research to model pedestrian walking speed
at signalized crosswalks considering Crosswalk Length and Signal timing, the
study had investigated the effect of pedestrian walking speed at the crosswalk and
concluded that the longer crosswalk corresponds to higher walking speed and give
a comparison of pedestrian speed model at Pedestrian green and Pedestrian
Flashing Green which demonstrated that pedestrian walking speed at PFG are
higher and more variable than at PG.
However, few efforts have been made to analyze the effects of crosswalk length,
signal timing and pedestrian crossing direction on pedestrian walking speeds at
crosswalks. For instance, PFG as part of pedestrian green phase typically relates to
higher walking speed. Other influencing factors, e.g., crosswalk geometric
characteristics, pedestrian crossing direction, are also assumed to have effects.
Therefore, this study models pedestrian walking speed as a function of these
factors and provides insights into pedestrian behavior analysis for safety
assessment.
According to completed researches, such as Tanaboriboon et al. (1986);

Tanaboriboon and Guyano (1991); Morrall et al. (1991); Lam et al. (1995);
- 17 -
Knoblauch et al. (1996); Koushki (1988); Lam and Cheung (2000); Tarawneh
(2001), pedestrian walking speed can be determined by dividing the travel distance
by crossing time. Normally, mean pedestrian walking speed or crossing speed will
be considered. However, it is recommended that 15th percentile of pedestrian
speed can be used as design speed, by assuming that 85% of pedestrian walk faster
than this speed. In contrast, 85th percentile will be the design speed if assume that
15% of pedestrian walk slower than this speed (Tarawneh, 2001).When sufficient
information has been gathered, pedestrians crossing speed were determined and
results were stored into Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS), a statistical
tool used to determine the mean, 15 and 85 percentile of the pedestrian crossing
speed. Besides, the STATA Analysis was conducted to evaluate the significance of
the contributing factors.
Table 1: Comparison of pedestrian walking Speeds in Different Countries [23]

(Source: quirky psychologist Richard Wiseman paper published on May 2007)
Average waliking Average waliking

Country Country
speed speed
Singapore 1,706 Sweden 1,412
Denmark 1,664 Slovenia 1,411
Spain 1,653 Japan 1,403
China 1,645 Canada 1,312
Ireland 1,632 Zimbabwe 1,293
Brazil 1,617 Taiwan 1,286
Germany 1,613 Egypt 1,269
America 1,500 Yemen 1,260
Netherland 1,495 Romania 1,253
Austria 1,493 UAE 1,230
Poland 1,491 Syria 1,230
UK 1,479 Jordan 1,129
Crotia 1,475 Switzerland 1,036
Czech Republic 1,457 Bahrain 1,018
New Zealnad 1,426 Malawi 0,968
France 1,423
- 18 -
According to completed researches, such as Tanaboriboon et al. (1986);
Tanaboriboon and Guyano (1991); Morrall et al. (1991); Lam et al. (1995);
Knoblauch et al. (1996); Koushki (1988); Lam and Cheung (2000); Tarawneh
(2001), pedestrian walking speed can be determined by dividing the travel
distance by crossing time. Normally, mean pedestrian walking speed or crossing
speed will be considered. However, it is recommended that 15th percentile of
pedestrian speed can be used as design speed, by assuming that 85% of pedestrian
walk faster than this speed. In contrast, 85th percentile will be the design speed if
assume that 15% of pedestrian walk slower than this speed (Tarawneh,
2001).When sufficient information has been gathered, pedestrians crossing speed
were determined and results were stored into Statistical Package for Social
Science (SPSS), a statistical tool used to determine the mean, 15 and 85
percentile of the pedestrian crossing speed. Besides, the Bivariate analysis (chi-
square test) was conducted to evaluate the significance of the contributing factors.
Empirical data on walking speed
In addition to consideration of mean walking speed (MWS), the 15th-percentile

speed also is important. Fifteen percent of pedestrians walk at or slower than this
speed. This is analogous to most 85th- percentile measures commonly used in
traffic engineering and highway design-where 85 percent of the observed values
fall within the capabilities of all users observed. Kell indicated that the 15 th
percentile speed is generally is an acceptable value to use in timing the signals for
pedestrians (Manual of Transportation Engineering Studies 2000).
Knoblauch et. al. 1995: had found out that the mean walking speed for the
younger and the older pedestrians was 4.95 ft/sec and 4.11 ft/sec respectively. The
15th percentile speed was 4.09 ft/sec and 3.19 ft/sec for younger and older
pedestrian respectively. These data were also stratified by city, pedestrian
characteristics, signal and operational characteristics, geometric characteristics
- 19 -
and ambient conditions.
Alhajyaseen and Nakamura, 2010: developed a theoretical methodology to model

total pedestrian crossing time. Their proposed model was validated from empirical
data. In the dinal formulation,the reduction in crossing speed is estimated as a
function of pedestrian demands at both sides of the crosswalk, signal timing
parameters and crosswalk geometry. The developed theoretical methodology by
group was utilized to estimate the minimum pedestrian crossing time requirements
as a function of crosswalk width and pedestrian demands at both sides of the
crosswalk. This methodology can be represented by a following figure.
Fig 1: Trade-off between crosswalk width and cycle length
Coffin and Morrall, 1995: conducted a study of walking speeds for pedestrian
older than 60 at six field locations in Calgary, Canada: two pedestrian-actuated
mid-block crosswalks, two crosswalks at signalized intersections, and two
crosswalks at non-signalized intersections. Pedestrians were timed from when
they stepped off the curb until they stepped onto the sidewalk at the other side.
- 20 -
The measured distance for each intersection was the observed most-traveled path
of pedestrians using the crosswalk. After pedestrian crossed the road, they were
intercepted and asked if they had time to answer questions about the intersections.
The interview were used to determine the pedestrians age. Mean walking speed at
the two signalized intersection were 4.5ft/sec and 4.6 ft/sec. The combined 15 th
percentile speed was 4 ft/sec. Mean walking speed at the signalized pedestrian
actuated mid-block crossing was 4.1 and 4 ft/sec, with a combined 15 th percentile
speed of 3.3 ft/sec.
- 21 -
Chapter 3: METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION
To achieve the objectives as stated in this study, following methodology has been
adopted (fig. 1).
i. Literature review
ii. Conceptual framework
iii. Site selection
iv. Data collection
v. Data Processing
vi. Data analysis
vii. Conclusion and Recommendation
Fig. 2: Framework of research
- 22 -
The study was carried out in main streets of Ruse city of Bulgaria. It was selected
due to available of both signalized intersection as well as non-signalized
intersection and this section is vulnerable for pedestrian while crossing due to
possibility of numbers of accidents. The total Eight study location seven for
signalized crossing and one for non-signalized crossing. However, the selected
sites are not similar in terms of traffic volume and Pedestrian volume. For this
study, the signalized crosswalk (Fig. 1) is defined as a crosswalk with provision
for pedestrian crossing by assigning the right of way using traffic device, such as
signal timing. Meanwhile, non-signalized crosswalk (Fig. 2) represents crosswalk
without proper provision for pedestrian crossing. Especially in this study, the non-
signalized crosswalk used is a type of crosswalk within the vicinity of major
traffic generating landmark.
A total of 1353 samples were collected both at signalized and non-signalized

control type crosswalk during peak hour time in weekdays. Out of these, 984
samples were collected at signalized crosswalk, while the rest of the 369 samples
were observed at non-signalized crosswalk. The samples were further broken
down into various age categories such as, children (<20 years old); adult (21-60
years old) and elderly (>60 years old). For each of the category, samples were
taken with consideration given on equalities of gender.
For age group, children are classified as pedestrian with age less than 20 years
old. This range of age is recognized by United Nations Children’s Fund
(UNICEF) as teenager or children. While pedestrian with age more than 60 years
old is classified as elderly or senior citizen, and this is the retirement age for
Bulgaria.
The data were collected through the use of data acquisition form, which consisted
of two parts, namely as general information and pedestrian characteristics. In the
general information part, some information such as environmental factors,
traffic conditions, study location layout and some contributing factors were
gathered. Whereas, in the second part, pedestrians crossing speed correspond to
- 23 -
the pedestrian characteristics, such as gender and age were reported. A pre-test
was performed on the data acquisition form to identify flaws, to verify the
accuracy and to allow for amendment before the actual data collection.
On the actual data collection, two major activities were involved. The first
activity involved the manual time recording for pedestrian to cross the respective
crosswalk, with the assistance of stopwatch. The second activity is mainly to
clarify the gender and age.
To obtain significant results, it is necessary to standardize the format of the

information at the early stage of data collection. The primary objective is to
eliminate the confusion when collecting data, which may lead to inappropriate
results. A guide was used in assisting on this study and is stated below
(Knoblauch et al., 1996):
The following individuals were not observed:

1. Pedestrian walking in groups;
2. Pedestrian carrying load (e.g. children, heavy bags, suitcases);
3. Pedestrian walking with bicycle or pets;
4. Pedestrian pushing strollers;
5. Pedestrian holding hands (couple) or assisting other pedestrian;
6. Disabled pedestrian.
The following pedestrian behavior were not observed:
• Running;
• Crossing diagonally;
• Stopping and resting.
A group is defined as two or more pedestrians walking at the approximately same

time, regardless of whether or not they were apparently friends or associates. For
- 24 -
weather condition, dry condition is classified as clear, with dry footpath or
roadway. While for wet condition, it is immediately after rain with wet footpath
(sidewalk) or roadway. For this study, data were not collected during heavy rain;
due to a decrease in pedestrian activity.
When sufficient information had been gathered, pedestrians crossing speed were
determined and results were stored into Microsoft excel, a statistical tool
used to determine the mean, 15 and 85 percentile of the pedestrian crossing
speed.
3.1. Literature Review.
A detailed literature survey was conducted to study the various methods that had
been proposed by different researchers and the method that were currently used
for the estimation of Pedestrian crossing speed of crossing at signalized and
non-signalized intersection.
3.2. Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed.
Here the Pedestrian crossing speed is analyzed in two different category, first
one is based on the gender and second one is based on the age group. Here in
order to find out the pedestrian behavior for pedestrian signal, the study is done
in both type of signalized and non-signalized crossings.
3.2.1. Study Location.
The focus of the study was on pedestrian crossing speed while crossing a road in
major streets of Ruse city of Bulgaria on Central Station to Str. Tzar Osvoboditel
road of Ruse City. The location crossing with its physical characteristics is given
in following Table.
The sites were selected by satisfying the following requirements:

- 25 -
1. There is reasonable flow of pedestrian.
2. It is away from the bus stop and other facilities, which may cause the pedestrian
to halt.
Once the side is selected appropriate position is chosen to install the Video
VBOX Pro to record the video on that site.
Fig 2: VBOX apparatus for taking the videorecords
Fig 3: Tripod stand to support the video camera
Table 2: Physical characteristics of selected sites for crossing
Location Description Length Width Green Red
- 26 -
number (m) (m) time time
(sec) (sec)
1 Panteona 12.5 4 30 40
2 Borisova 1st 24 4 24 15
3 Borisova 2nd 18 4 24 15
4 Near Mall 8.2 3 10 52

Ruse
5 Tzar 11 4.8 50 30
Osvoboditel
and Panayot
Hitov cross
6 Sloun and 19.2 4.4 15 47

Lipnik Cross
7 Olimp cross 11.5 4 35 55
8 Alexandrovska 10 4m each
street (Non- and 11m
signalized) in
between
- 27 -
Fig 4: View of the Panteona crosswalk
- 28 -
Fig 5: Borisova 1st crosswalk
Fig 6: Borisova 2nd crosswalk
- 29 -
Fig 7: Crosswalk near Mall Rousse
Fig 8: Olimp Cross
- 30 -
Fig 9: Tzar Osvobotiel and Panayot Hitov cross
- 31 -
Fig 10: Sloun and Lipnik Cross
Fig 11: Alexandrovska Street
- 32 -
Chapter 4: DATA ANALYSIS
After extracting all the data from the video recording then they are subjected for
analysis process in order to find the mean speed for different categories of the
pedestrian. The result is shown below in tabular format.
Table 3 gives the pedestrian crossing speed for signalized crosswalk in

various categories. Pedestrian crossing times for different conditions are
expressed in term of mean speed. Similar findings are presented in Table 4 for
non-signalized crosswalk.
Table3: Pedestrian crossing Speed for signalized crosswalk
Signalized crosswalk
Categories Number Speed, m/s
female child 37 1,406
male child 20 1,389
female adult 351 1,404
male adult 308 1,476
female elderly 108 1,247
male elderly 78 1,293
- 33 -
Table 4: Pedestrian Crossing Speed in Non-signalized crosswalk
Non-signalized
Categories Number Speed, m/s
female child 14 1,366
male child 9 1,458
female adult 168 1,293
male adult 146 1,355
female elderly 26 1,216
male elderly 29 1,183
Here in Signalized crosswalk the male adult is seems to be the fastest group. The
average walking speed of the adult and that of children are found to be slight
faster than the elderly group. This may be due to the aging or to the extra care
taken by the elderly group. Regardless of the categories the average speed of the
pedestrian for the signalized crosswalk is found to be 1.404 m/s.
And in Non-Signalized crosswalk it is found that the male pedestrian for children
and adult categories are walking faster than the Female pedestrian while in case
of Elderly category male pedestrian are walking slower than the female
pedestrian. Here also regardless of the categories the average speed of the
pedestrian for the Non-Signalized crosswalk is found to be 1.371 m/s.
On comparing both type of crosswalk it is found that by analysis except the

average walking speed for male child category, the average walking speed for the
group belonging to other categories is higher in signalized crossings in Ruse city.
- 34 -
4.1. Bulgarian Pedestrian Speed
The mean Bulgarian pedestrian speed at non-signalized crosswalk is 1.371m/s.

This value is quite higher than the countries like Romania, Switzerland, Syria.
However for countries like Singapore, Germany, Poland, Denmark, Austria the
speed is quite lower.
In comparison to other European countries, such as Denmark, Germany, Poland,

Austria, Bulgarian pedestrians walk in slower pace. This could be due to the
physical differences among pedestrians (e.g. height) and dressing and habits. For
example, taller pedestrians have longer footsteps, thus their movement length are
greater in distance compared to those who are shorter. Inconvenient dressing such
as, traditional custom could also influence the walking speed of pedestrian in
terms of free movement of both footsteps. Similar findings have been reported by
Researchers Tanaboriboon et al. (1986) , Tanaboriboon and Guyano (1991) and
Psychologist Richard Wiseman (2007)
Meanwhile, for signalized crosswalk in Bulgaria, the mean pedestrian speed is

1.404 m/s, which is higher than mean speed at non-signalized crosswalk. As most
of the studies conducted did not emphasize on this consideration in determining
pedestrian speed, it is not possible to carry out a comparison on this value.
4.2. Contributing factors.

4.2.1. Crosswalk type.
Normally in most of all countries the pedestrian speed at the non-signalized

crosswalk is faster than that of Signalized crosswalk. But here in our case in city
ruse, the pedestrian at the non-signalized crosswalk are found to be walking
slowly than the pedestrian from the signalized crosswalk. May be this is because
in signalized crosswalk there is only a limit time (time to cross the street in most
of the crosswalk is less). However in case of Non-signalized crosswalk though the
- 35 -
pedestrian are not protected and are always at risk while crossing, but due to the
hump present in front of crosswalk they have the mentality that the vehicle will
stop for them while crossing. So they walk more casually in Non-signalized
crosswalk than in Signalized crosswalk. This contributing factor is in line with
some research conducted (Tanaboriboon et al., 1986; Tanaboriboon and Guyano,
1991).
4.2.2. Age.
There is a significant difference in terms of age and pedestrian crossing speed.

Findings indicate that elderly pedestrian with age greater than 60 years old are
likely to walk slower and which can explain why most of the pedestrian accident
mainly involves elderly pedestrian. Insufficient time to cross safely may lead to
the road accident involving elderly pedestrian and the roadway design should
consider this.
In contrast, children pedestrians (age less than 20 years old) are the fastest group.
This is mainly because children pedestrian are the youngest group are generally
very energetic. Furthermore, their reaction is faster than adult and elderly group.
Road accident involving children might not necessarily be due to the lack of
crossing time, since they do walk faster than other groups, it might be contributed
by other factors, such as playing while crossing, low perception capability, lack of
proper safety education or lack of proper safe crossing facilities. Similar findings
were also supported by Tanaboriboon et al. (1986); Tanaboriboon and Guyano
(1991); Morrall et al. (1991); Bowman and Vecellio (1994); Knoblauch et al.
(1996); Oxley et al. (1997) and Tarawneh (2001).
- 36 -
I) For Signalized crossing
Table 5: Distribution of male pedestrian walking speed based on age
Age group Speed, m/s
<20 years 1,389
20-60 years 1,476
>60 years 1,293
Fig 12: Distribution of Male Pedestrian Walking speed based on age
Table 6: Distribution of Female pedestrian walking speed based on age
Age group Speed m/s
<20 years 1,406
20-60 years 1,404
>60 years 1,247
- 37 -
Fig 13: Distribution of Female Pedestrian Walking speed based on age
II) For Non-Signalized crossing

Table 7: Distribution of male pedestrian walking speed based on age
Age group Speed m/s
<20 years 1,458
20-60 years 1,355
>60 years 1,183
- 38 -
Fig 14: Distribution of Male Pedestrian Walking speed based on age
Table 8: Distribution of Female pedestrian walking speed based on age
Age group Speed m/s
<20 years 1,293
20-60 years 1,366
>60 years 1,216
Fig 15: Distribution of Female Pedestrian Walking speed based on age
- 39 -
4.2.3. Gender.
There is a strong relationship between pedestrian speed and gender. Male

pedestrians were more likely to walk faster than females when crossing the road.
This is in line with some studies reported (Tanaboriboon et al., 1986;
Tanaboriboon and Guyano, 1991; Morrall et al., 1991; Lam et al., 1995;
Knoblauch et al., 1996; Koushki, 1988; Lam and Cheung, 2000; Tarawneh, 2001).
Men usually give less priority for safety compared to women. So far, the general
conclusion is that male pedestrians walk faster than female pedestrians do.
Therefore, they are more vulnerable group, especially if they are rushing and thus
paying less attention, which could lead to road accident. It explains why many
road accident cases involve male pedestrian. But in our case in Ruse city the result
is a little different, there is no such difference in the pedestrian speed of the child
group and elderly group in both Signalized and non-signalized group but in case
of Adult group the male pedestrian are found walking slowly in Non-signalized
crosswalk whereas the same group are found to be walking faster in the signalized
crosswalk than the female pedestrian. Here another thing to be considered is that
the adult pedestrian are walking slowly in the non-signalized crosswalk than in the
signalized crosswalk which is simply not acceptable in the society because they
are the one who should teach the coming generation about the safety that need to
take care in such type of crosswalk where there is no pedestrian signal timing, it is
because statistics on the previous research shows that more accident had happened
in the non-signalized crosswalk than in the Signalized crosswalk. The comparison
of crossing speed of the pedestrian in both type of crosswalk is shown in table
below.
I) For Male Pedestrian

Table 9: Comparison of Male pedestrian speed in both type of crosswalk
Age group Speed m/s
- 40 -
Signalized Non-signalized
<20 years 1.389 1.458
20-60 years 1.476 1.355
>60 years 1.293 1.183
II) For Female Pedestrian

Table 10: Comparison of Female pedestrian speed in both type of crosswalk
Speed m/s
Age group
Signalized Non-Signalized
<20 years 1.406 1.293
20-60 years 1.404 1.366
>60 years 1.247 1.216
Fig 16. Comparison of the speed of pedestrian based on age group in both type
of crosswalk
- 41 -
4.3. Comparison of pedestrian crossing speed with other countries.
As we have already see the different pedestrian speed from different countries in
Table 1, now with the help of that table we will compare the pedestrian speed of
the Ruse city with the cities of different countries.
Table 11: Average walking Speed for Pedestrian from different countries
Average
Average
waliking
Country Country waliking
speed
speed (m/s)
(m/s)
Singapore (Singapore) 1,706 Sweden (Stockholm) 1,412
Denmark (Copenhagen) 1,664 Slovenia (Ljubljana) 1,411
Spain (Madrid) 1,653 Japan (Tokyo) 1,403
China (GuangZhou) 1,645 Bulgaria (Ruse) 1,312
Ireland (Dublin) 1,632 Canada (Ottawa) 1,312
Brazil (Curitiba) 1,617 Zimbabwe (Harare) 1,293
Germany (Berlin) 1,613 Taiwan (Taipei) 1,286
America (New York) 1,500 Egypt (Cairo) 1,269
Netherland (Utrecht) 1,495 Yemen (Sana'a) 1,260
Austria (Vienna) 1,493 Romania (Bucharest) 1,253
Poland (Warsaw) 1,491 UAE (Dubai) 1,230
UK (london) 1,479 Syria (Damascus) 1,230
Crotia (Zagreb) 1,475 Jordan (Amman) 1,129
Czech Republic (Prague) 1,457 Switzerland (Bern) 1,036
NewZealand
1,426 Bahrain (Manama) 1,018
(Wellington)
France (paris) 1,423 Malawi (Blantyre) 0,968
- 42 -
Fig 17: Comparison of Pedestrian speed from people living in different parts of
world
4.4. Cumulative Speed Distribution Curve.
With the help of the data extracted for every cross walk, then the data were
separated in two groups i.e. data from Signalized crosswalk are merged in one
group and data from the Non-signalized group merged in another group. And with
the help of these data the cumulative Speed distribution curve is drawn for both
cases.
- 43 -
Fig 18. Cumulative distribution curve for Signalized crosswalk.
From the above graph we concluded that the 15th percentile speed is 1.179 m/s and
the 85th percentile speed is 1.643 m/s for the signalized cross walk of Ruse City.
Fig 19: Cumulative Distribution Curve for Non-signalized crosswalk
- 44 -
From the above graph we concluded that the 15th percentile speed is 1.11 m/s and
85th percentile speed is 1.474 m/s for Non-signalized crosswalk of Ruse city.
4.5. Statistical analysis for the observed data.

Before doing any statistical analysis we have to check whether the data are
normally distributed or not.
Fig 20: Histogram showing the data of signalized crosswalk.
The above histogram shows that the data taken in the signalized crosswalk are
normally distributed and we can do the further statistical analysis with this data.
- 45 -
Fig 21: Histogram showing the data of Non-signalized crosswalk
The above figure shows that the data that was taken in non-signalized crosswalk
are normally distributed so we can do the statistical analysis with these data.
Table 12: STATA Analysis for Signalized Crosswalk
Variable B-Coeff. Standard t-stat P-Value 95%

Error confidence
interval
Sex (Male), “a” 0.058 0.0154 3.73 0.33 0.027 0.088
Age Group
I) Child “b” -0.038 0.031 -1.22 0.222 -0.099 0.023
II) Elderly “c” -0.257 0.0195 -13.2 0.000 -0.295 -0.219
Constant 1.447 0.011 126.58 0.000 1.425 1.47
- 46 -
The analysis shows that on unit increment of the pedestrian, the speed of the Male
pedestrian will increase by 0.058 factor than the female pedestrian on keeping the
age factor constant.
Similarly The Analysis shows that with unit increment of the number of the
pedestrian, the speed of the pedestrian will decrease by 0.038 factor for child group
and decrease by 0.257 factor for elderly group on keeping the Adult group as the
base.
On equation form,
Pedestrian Speed (Y)= 1.447+0.058*a-0.038*b-0.257*c
Table 13: STATA analysis for Non-signalized crosswalk
Variable B- coeff Standard t-stat P-value 95%

Error confidence
interval
Sex (Male) “a” 0.065 0.021 3.13 0.002 0.024 0.105
Age Group
I) Child “b” -0.074 0.043 -1.74 0.083 0.0158 0.01
II) Elderly “c” -0.215 0.029 -7.42 0.000 -0.272 -0.158
Constant 1.313 0.031 41.49 0.000 1.251 1.375
The analysis shows that on unit increment of the pedestrian, the speed of the Male
pedestrian will increase by 0.065 factor than the female pedestrian on keeping the
age factor constant.
- 47 -
Similarly The Analysis shows that with unit increment of the number of the
pedestrian, the speed of the pedestrian will decrease by -0.074 factor for child
group and decrease by 0.215 factor for elderly group on keeping the Adult group as
the base.
On Equation form,
Pedestrian Speed (Y) = 1.313+0.065*a-0.074*b-0.215*c
- 48 -
Chapter 5: CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
With the help of the data we collected in the Signalized and Non-signalized
crosswalk, we had done several analysis and finally collected the following
findings:
The mean, 85th percentile and the 15th percentile pedestrian speeds at signalized
crosswalk in the Ruse city of Bulgaria are 1.404 m/s, 1.643m/s and 1.179 m/s
respectively.
For Non-signalized crosswalk the mean, 85th percentile and the 15th percentile
pedestrian speeds in Ruse city of Bulgaria are found to be 1.371m/s, 1.11 m/s and
1.474 m/s respectively.
Among many factors that can contribute the variation on the pedestrian speed, the
most significant factors that affects in the variation of the pedestrian speed of the
Ruse city Bulgaria are found to be the Crosswalk type, Age factor and the Gender.
Except the Male children group, it is found that the Walking speed of the
pedestrian of other groups (Female children, Male and Female Adult and Male
and Female Elderly Group) are significantly higher in the Signalized crosswalk
than in Non-signalized crosswalk.
The children and adult group are walking relatively faster than the Elderly group
(greater than 60 years old). So while designing the signalized crosswalk in future,
consideration should be given to elderly pedestrian to ensure they will get
sufficient time for the safe crossing of the road.
In the street most of the pedestrian belong to the adult group (20 to 60 years age
group) and it is found that the male pedestrian from this group have significantly
faster crossing speed than female pedestrian. As Female pedestrian from this
group are walking slower, it should be included in the consideration of the
pedestrian accident study.
- 49 -
In signalized crosswalk, the time allocated for the green signal for pedestrian is
found comparatively less than the time it has to be given for the respective
crosswalk and for the pedestrian traffic that are using that crosswalk.
And in case of non-signalized crosswalk the people seems to be more careless and
walking slowly than that from walking in the signalized crosswalk. It may be
because of the lack of awareness or may be due to the attitude problem. Here
though the adult group (20-60 years) are said to be more energetic but here in our
studies it is found that the walking speed of the Female adult group is quite more
or less equal to the speed of the elderly group (> 60 years) pedestrian.
Another thing which should be checked in city Ruse is that, there is variation in
the crosswalk width, like place where there is more pedestrian volume (bi-
directional flow) the width is only 3.0m in front of Mall Ruse. And in some places
there is diagonal crossing like in Borisova which will take more time to cross the
street, so as far as possible the crossing should be made as straight as possible.
And in most of the signalized crossing the time for pedestrian crossing is so less
that the most of the elderly pedestrian have to walk in red phase too, similarly by
doing this study we can say that the signalized crossing has given no facilities for
physically challenged pedestrian. So if city Ruse has to look the countermeasures
to reduce the pedestrian-traffic crash in the crosswalk, first the traffic control
operators of the city Ruse has to update the method by which they are designing
the signal timing.
Nowadays the traffic signal design for pedestrian are using 1.22 m/s based on
HCM, 2000 which doesn’t provide sufficient time for pedestrian to cross safely.
Perhaps, this may be one of the main reasons why pedestrian at the signalized
crosswalk tends to walk faster.
In order to promote the pedestrian safety, it is recommended to incorporate the

latest findings for traffic control design and more relevant studies should be
carried out to further investigate the more factors which will affect the pedestrian
- 50 -
crossing speed.
- 51 -
REFERENCES
o 1. Transportation Research Board (TRB), (2000), Highway Capacity Manual,
Washington, DC, National Research Council.
o 2. Dixon, L. B. (1996), “Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance
measures and standards for congestion management systems”, Transportation
Research Record, 1538, pp 1-9.
o 3. Gallin, N. (2001), “Quantifying pedestrian friendliness: Guidelines for
assessing pedestrian level of service”, Proceedings from Australia: Walking the
21stCentury Conference.
o 4. Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities –IRC: 103 –(1998), The Indian
Roads Congress, New Delhi.
o 5. Muraleetharan, T., Adachi, T., Hagiwara, T., Kagaya,S. (2005) “Method to
determine pedestrian level -ofservice for crosswalks at urban intersections”,
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transporta tion Studies, Vol. 6, pp.
127-136
o Dr.L.R.Kadiyali “Traffic Engineering and Transportation planning”, Khanna
publishers.
o Bowman, B.L.; Vecellio, R.L. 1994. Pedestrian Walking Speeds and Conflicts at
Urban Median Locations, Transportation Research Record, 1438: 67-73
o Knoblauch, R.L.; Pietrucha, M.T.; Nitzburg, M. 1996. Field Studies of Pedestrian
Walking Speed and Start-up Time, Transportation Research Record.DOI:
hž p://dx.doi.org/10.3141/1538-04, 1538: 27-38.
o Lam, W.K.L.; Morrall, J.F.; Ho, H. 1995. Pedestrian Flow Characteristics in
Hong Kong, Transportation Research Record, 1487: 56-62.
o Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM). 2004. Statistical Report Road Accidents
Malaysia – 2003.
o Recommended Walking Speeds for Pedestrian Clearance Timing Based on
Pedestrian Characteristics(By Tim J. Gates, David A. Noyce, Andrea R. Bill, and
- 52 -
Nathanael Van Ee , Paper No. 06-1826 ).
o Recommended ProceduresChapter 13, "Pedestrians,"of theHighway Capacity
Manual Capacity Analysis of Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Task Order 8:
Pedestrian-Bicycle Research Program by: Nagui M. Rouphail, Professor, P.I.
Joseph E. Hummer, Associate Professor, co-P.I. Joseph S. Milazzo II, Research
Assistant.
o Virkler, Mark and Sathish Elayadath. "Pedestrian Speed-Flow-Density
Relationships."Transportation Research Record1438, Transportation Research
Board, 1994a.
o Tarawneh, S. M. (2001) Evaluation of Pedestrian Speed in Jordan with
Investigation of Some Contributing Factors, In Journal of Safety Research, 32,
pp.229-236
o Transportation Research Board (2010) Highway Capacity Manual (HCM),
National Research Council, Washington, D.C., USA
o Traffic Control Devices Handbook. Institute of Transportation Engineers,
Washington, D.C, 2001.
o L. R Kadiyali. Traffic Engineering and Transportation Planning. Khanna
Publishers,New Delhi, 1987.
- 53 -
Appendix 1: Pantawa Crosswalk
Width of Crossing= 4m
Location: Pantawa Length of crossing=12.5m
Speed
Ped No Gender Age Group Time to cross
(m/s)
street (s)
1 Female Adult 9 1.389
2 Male Adult 10 1.250
10 Female Elderly 9 1.389
16 Female Child 10 1.250
21 Male Child 10 1.250
22 Male Elderly 9 1.389
- 54 -
Time to cross Speed
Ped No Gender Age Group
street (s) (m/s)
- 55 -
Time to cross Speed
Ped No Gender Age Group
street (s) (m/s)
- 56 -
Appendix 2: Borishawa 1St Crosswalk
Location: Borishawa 1st Length of crossing= 14m
Time to cross the
Ped no Age Group Gender Speed (m/s)
street
1 Elderly Female 12 1.167
2 Adult Female 10 1.400
3 Child Female 10 1.400
6 Adult Male 10 1.400
9 Elderly Male 10 1.400
15 Child Male 10 1.400
- 57 -
Time to cross the
Ped no Age Group Gender Speed (m/s)
street
- 58 -
Appendix 3: Borishawa 2nd Crosswalk
Width of Crossing= 4m length of

Location: Borishawa 2nd Crossing= 18m
Time to cross the Speed
Ped no category Gender
street (m/s)
- 59 -
Time to cross the Speed
Ped no category Gender
street (m/s)
- 60 -
Appendix 4: Lipnik and Souln Cross
Length of crossing=19.2m
Location: Lipnik Souln Cross Width of Crossing= 4.4m
Time to cross the
Ped No Gender Age Group street speed (m/s)
1 Male adult 12 1.600
3 Female adult 13 1.477
- 61 -
Time to cross the
- 62 -
Time to cross the
108 Male adult 13 1.477
109 Male adult 13 1.477
110 Male adult 12 1.600
112 Male adult 12 1.600
113 Male adult 14 1.371
114 Male adult 13 1.477
115 Male adult 12 1.600
- 63 -
Appendix 5: Tsar Osvobotiel and Panaiot
Hitov cross
Location: Tsar Osvobotiel and
Panaiot Hitov cross Width of Crossing= 4.8m Length of Crossing=11m
Time to cross
Ped No Gender Age Group the street Speed (m/s)
- 64 -
Time to cross
- 65 -
Time to cross
117 Male Child 10 1.100
118 Male Child 11 1.000
- 66 -
125 Male Child 10 1.100
Time to cross
146 Male Adult 10 1.100
151 Male Child 10 1.100
160 Male Adult 10 1.100
- 67 -
Time to cross
177 Male Adult 11 1.000
- 68 -
Appendix 6: Mall Rousse Cross
Location: Near Mall rousse Length of Crossing=8.2m
Time to cross the
Ped No Gender Age group street Speed (m/s)
- 69 -
Time to cross the
- 70 -
Time to cross the
- 71 -
Time to cross the
- 72 -
Time to cross the
- 73 -
Time to cross the
- 74 -
Appendix 7: Olimp Cross
Location: Olimp Cross Length Of Crossing= 11.5m
PED no. Gender Age Group Time to cross the street Speed (m/s)
- 75 -
- 76 -
- 77 -
167 Male Child 10 1.150
- 78 -
205 Male Adult 10 1.150
213 Male Child 10 1.150
- 79 -
- 80 -
Appendix 8: Alexandra Street
Location: Alexandra Width of Crossing= 4m each Length Of crossing=10m

Time to cross the
Ped No Sex Age Group street (Sec) Speed (m/s)
- 81 -
Time to cross the
- 82 -
Time to cross the
- 83 -
Time to cross the
- 84 -
Time to cross the
- 85 -
Time to cross the
- 86 -
Time to cross the
285 Male Adult 11 0.909
- 87 -
Time to cross the
- 88 -
Time to cross the
- 89 -

Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Signalized Intersection-3 - MM - Formated - Last Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed at Signalized Intersection-3 - MM - Formated - Last Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of Ruse Angel Kanchev

Analysis of pedestrian crossing speed at Signalized and Non-Signalized crosswalk.

By: Sudeep Thapa

THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN TRANSPORTATIONENGINEERING

Date: June 2015

Keywords: walking speed, crossing speed, Signalized crosswalk, Non-

I would like to express my deep sense of gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

I’m grateful to Assistant professor Svilen Kostadinov, Assistant professor Pavel

LOS Level of Service

m/s Meter per second

ft/sec Feet per second

DOF Degree of Freedom

HCM Highway Capacity Manual

MUTCD Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices

STATA Data analysis Statistical Software

A pedestrian is a person travelling on foot, whether walking or running. In some

Considering the crosswalk position, existing manuals do not provide universal

Unfortunately. There is no specific guidelines exist for pedestrian crossing speed in

1.2. Problem Definition

Pedestrianisation has become an integral part of sustainable modern urban design.

1.3 Research Question

It is necessary to know the crossing speed of different group of pedestrian while

Based on above discussion, this research tries to answer following questions:

1. What is a crossing speed of Pedestrian while crossing a road?

1.4. Research Objective

The following are considered as the sub objectives:

1.5 Limitation of Study

The frequency of pedestrian accident is increasing day by day. Pedestrian are

1.6 Organization of Report

Harkey, 1995: explores the problems of older drivers and pedestrians at

Tarawneh (2001) analyzed pedestrian walking speeds at various pedestrian

Montufar et al. (2007) analyzed the difference of pedestrian walking speeds at

According to completed researches, such as Tanaboriboon et al. (1986);

Table 1: Comparison of pedestrian walking Speeds in Different Countries [23]

Average waliking Average waliking

Empirical data on walking speed

In addition to consideration of mean walking speed (MWS), the 15th-percentile

Alhajyaseen and Nakamura, 2010: developed a theoretical methodology to model

Fig 1: Trade-off between crosswalk width and cycle length

Fig. 2: Framework of research

A total of 1353 samples were collected both at signalized and non-signalized

To obtain significant results, it is necessary to standardize the format of the

The following individuals were not observed:

2. Pedestrian carrying load (e.g. children, heavy bags, suitcases);

3. Pedestrian walking with bicycle or pets;

4. Pedestrian pushing strollers;

5. Pedestrian holding hands (couple) or assisting other pedestrian;

The following pedestrian behavior were not observed:

A group is defined as two or more pedestrians walking at the approximately same

3.1. Literature Review.

3.2. Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Speed.

3.2.1. Study Location.

The sites were selected by satisfying the following requirements:

Fig 2: VBOX apparatus for taking the videorecords

Fig 3: Tripod stand to support the video camera

Table 2: Physical characteristics of selected sites for crossing

Location Description Length Width Green Red

4 Near Mall 8.2 3 10 52

6 Sloun and 19.2 4.4 15 47

7 Olimp cross 11.5 4 35 55

Fig 6: Borisova 2nd crosswalk

Pedestrian Speed (Y)= 1.447+0.058a-0.038b-0.257*c