Determining the Most Suitable Pedestrian Level of Service Method for Dhaka City,Bangladesh,through a Synthesis of Measurements

Abstract

In this paper, five pedestrian level of service (PLOS) methods are outlined in brief with respect to their assets and their limitations: (a) the Australian method, (b) the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 method, (c) the trip quality method, (d) the Landis method, and (e) the Tan Dandan method. In this study, each method was implemented to consider its suitability for use in Dhaka City, Bangladesh, through the integration of objective measurement and subjective assessment. The objective measurement consisted of a determination of the PLOS of five study locations in Dhaka City and the adoption of field data on traffic, geometric, and environmental factors. The subjective assessment had its basis in a user perception rating by 50 individuals of the service quality of pedestrian facilities in the selected study areas. A separate survey of 415 individuals was conducted to identify the most favored of 25 service quality attributes extracted from the five PLOS methods. The perception ratings were scrutinized to identify any potential deviations that arose from participant age and gender. In the ratings, the Australian method prevailed over the other four methods with a score of 18. The trip quality method scored second best with 16 points. The separate survey substantiated the adequacy of the Australian method for use in Dhaka City and included seven of the eight most desired and popular PLOS attributes selected by the survey respondents. Future research should be devoted to the development of a new PLOS method that uses the factors identified in this paper.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Sarkar

Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians, with European Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 35–42.

Gallin

Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness—Guidelines for Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service. Proc., Australia: Walking the 21st Century, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 2001, pp. 119–128.

Rahaman

K. R.

, Dhar

T. K.

, Hossain

M. S. F.

, and Khan

. A Comprehensive Approach to Model Pedestrians Safety in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009, pp. 197–204.

Sisiopiku

V. P.

, Byrd

J. E.

, and Chittoor

. Application of Level-of-Service Methods for Evaluation of Operations at Pedestrian Facilities. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2002, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 117–124.

Landis

B. W.

, Vattikuti

V. R.

, Ottenberg

R. M.

, McLeod

D. S.

, and Guttenplan

. Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–88.

Fruin

Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., New York, 1971.

Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 3rd ed. (1997 update). TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.

Pushkarev

, and Zupan

. Urban Space for Pedestrians. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1975.

Whyte

W. H.

City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday, New York, 1988.

10.

Weidmann

Transport Techniques for Pedestrians. ETH Zurich, IVT Berichte 90, Zurich, Switzerland, 1993.

11.

Mozer

Calculating Multi-Modal Levels-of-Service. International Bicycle Fund, Seattle, Wash., 1994. http://www.ibike.org/engineering/los.htm.

12.

Dixon

L. B.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. In Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.

13.

Dowling

, Reinke

D. B.

, Flannery

, Ryus

, Vandehey

, Petritsch

T. A.

, Landis

B. W.

, Rouphail

N. M.

, and Bonneson

J. A.

. NCHRP Report 616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_616.pdf. Accessed October 2014.

14.

Quality/Level of Service Handbook. Florida Department of Transportation, Office of the State Transportation Planner, Systems Planning Office, Tallahassee, Fla., 2002. http://www11.myflorida.com/planning/systems/sm/los. Accessed Jan. 7, 2003.

15.

Rapoport

History and Precedent in Environmental Design. Plenum, New York, 1990.

16.

Jacobs

A. B.

Great Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.

17.

Jaskiewicz

Pedestrian Level of Service Based on Trip Quality. In Transportation Research Circular E-C019: Urban Street Symposium, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000.

18.

Dandan

, Wei

, Jain

, and Yang

. Research on Methods of Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service for Sidewalk. Journal of Transportation Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 7, No. 5, 2007, pp. 74–79.

19.

Siddique

Determination of a Suitable Level of Service Method to Measure Service Quality of Pedestrian Walkways in Dhaka City. MS thesis. Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, 2014.