Share:


Revision of PV2 criteria based pedestrian crossing warrants

    Udit Jain Affiliation
    ; Rajat Rastogi Affiliation

Abstract

Several guideline documents on pedestrian crossing warrants are followed around the world. Peak hour pedestrian volume “P” and vehicular volume “V” are two most commonly used factors in these guidelines. PV2 is a criteria, which is used in guideline documents of India, Iran and UK to identify the need of warranting a particular mid-block location. In India, these guidelines were adapted from UK in 1988 and have not been revised in the last three decades. These guidelines report a benchmark value, in the excess of which a location should be warranted. The benchmark values are based on peak flows of 1980s, which have increased drastically over the years. In addition, the guidelines do not identify the type of crossing facility, which should be provided at a particular location. Therefore, these guidelines need to be revised. In this paper, PV2 matrices have been developed for a variety of road configurations using the maximum field hourly flows as the upper bounds. Further, probability distributions have been fitted to the PV2 values. Threshold values have been proposed based on the curvilinear characteristics of the probability distributions. The revised PV2 values vary from 0.6×108 to 2.1×1011 for different roadway configurations. The ranges formed using these values have been used to classify the type of crossing facility to be installed using a systematic hierarchical approach. The warrant charts and PV2  value ranges can be used to identify the need, as well as the most appropriate crossing facility for the site based on the peak hour pedestrian volume and vehicular volume. The proposed PV2 values and warrants are based on Indian traffic flow conditions. These threshold values may require modifications for application in any other country.

Keyword : pedestrian, crossing warrants, crossing facilities, PV2, distribution fitting, pedestrian safety

How to Cite
Jain, U., & Rastogi, R. (2020). Revision of PV2 criteria based pedestrian crossing warrants . Transport, 35(2), 168-178. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2020.12474
Published in Issue
Apr 22, 2020
Abstract Views
658
PDF Downloads
284
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Abley, S.; Smith, D.; Rendall, S. 2015. Development of the Australasian Pedestrian Facility Selection Tool. Austroads Project NS1912, Austroads Ltd., Sydney, Australia. 92 p.

Amini, B.; Ghahramani, H. 2004. A location model for pedestrian crossings in arterial streets, WIT Transactions on the Built Environment 75: 407–412.

Austroads. 2020. Australasian Pedestrian Crossing Facility Selection Tool [V2.1.4]. Austroads Ltd., Sydney, Australia. Available from Internet: http://austpedtool.com

BHCC. 2011. Assessment and Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities. Brighton & Hove City Council (BHCC), UK. 2 p. Available from Internet: https://present.brighton-hove.gov.uk/Published/C00000286/M00003233/AI00020954/$Item17 Appendix1.docA.ps.pdf

Brilon, W.; Koenig, R.; Troutbeck, R. J. 1999. Useful estimation procedures for critical gaps, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33(3–4): 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(98)00048-2

Carlson, P. J.; Hawkins, H. G. 1998. Evaluation of Potential Traffic Signal Warrant Considerations. Report No TX-99/3991-1. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A&M University System, Texas, US. 188 p. Available from Internet: https://static.tti.tamu.edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/3991-1.pdf

CEC. 2011. Pedestrian Crossing Policy. Cheshire East Council (CEC), UK. 16 p. Available from Internet: https://moderngov.cheshireeast.gov.uk/ecminutes/documents/s15496/04-Pedestrian%20Crossing%20Policy%20-%20report%20and%20appendices.pdf

CRF. 2001. Crosswalk Policy. City of River Falls (CRF), WI, US. Available from Internet: https://www.rfcity.org

DC. 2014. Dorset County Council Guidance Note Selection and Priority Assessment: Procedure for the Provision of Pedestrian Crossings and Associated Facilities. Dorset Council (DC), UK. 5 p. Available from Internet: http://moderngov.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/Data/274/201701061000/Agenda/Petitions%20Panel%20060117%20-%20Appendix%20A%20-%20Guidance%20for%20Crossing%20requests.pdf

DfT. 1995. Local Transport Note 1/95: the Assessment of Pedestrian Crossings. Department for Transport (DfT), London, UK. 15 p. Available from Internet: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attach-ment_data/file/330269/ltn-1-95_Assessment-Crossings.pdf

DfT. 1987. Roads and Traffic in Urban Areas. Department for Transport, London, UK.

DfT. 2006. STATS19 Road Accidents Dataset: Road Accidents and Safety Statistics. Department for Transport, London, UK.

DTMR. 2010. Traffic and Road Use Management Manual (TRUM). Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR), Queensland Government, Australia. Available from Internet: https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/business-industry/Technical-standards-publications/Traffic-and-Road-Use-Management-manual

FHWA. 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, US. 864 p. Available from Internet: https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf

Harkey, D. L.; Reinfurt, D. W.; Knuiman, M. 1998. Development of the bicycle compatibility index, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 1636: 13–20. https://doi.org/10.3141/1636-03

IRC:103-2012. Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities. Indian Road Congress.

IRC:103-1988. Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities. Indian Road Congress.

Kadali, B. R.; Vedagiri, P. 2018. Pedestrian quality of service at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions: towards quantitative approach, Transport 33(2): 302–314. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1183227

Lu, G; Noyce, D. A. 2009. Signalized mid-block pedestrian crossing: current operations study and a fuzzy logic strategy, in ITS America’s 2009 Annual Meeting & Exposition, 1–3 June 2009, Maryland, US, 2: 1854–1871.

Mohan, D.; Tsimhoni, O.; Sivak, M.; Flannagan, M. J. 2009. Road Safety in India: Challenges and Opportunities. Report No UMTRI-2009-1. Transportation Research Institute, University of Michigan, US. 62 p. Available from Internet: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/61504

MoRTH. 2015. Road Accidents in India – 2015. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH), Government of India. 123 p. Available from Internet: https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/Road_Accidents_in_India_2015.pdf

NZTA. 2009. Guidelines for the Selection of Pedestrian Facilities. New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), New Zealand. 30 p. Available from Internet: https://www.nzta.govt.nz/assets/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/docs/guidelines-selection-of-pedestrian-facilities.pdf

Prabhu, T. D. 2014. Pedestrian Crossing Behavior in Urban Roads. Post Graduate Thesis. Department of Transport Planning, School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi, India.

RMBC. 2011. Pedestrian crossing assessment method and costs. Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council (RMBC), UK. Available from Internet: https://www.rotherham.gov.uk

TCEC. 2012. Pedestrian Crossing Prioritisation List. The City of Edinburgh Council (TCEC), UK. Available from Internet: https://www.edinburgh.gov.uk

Teja, T. N. 2013. Development of Criteria for Provision of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities. Post Graduate Thesis. Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India.

Tiwari, G.; Mohan, D.; Gupta, D. P. 2000. Evaluation of Capacity Augmentation Projects of National Highways and State Highways. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, New Delhi, India.

TRB. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual. Transportation Research Board (TRB), Washington DC, US. 1650 p.

Troutbeck, R. 1992. Estimating the Critical Assessment Gap From Traffic Movements. Research Report 92-5. Physical Infrastructure Centre, Queensland University of Technology, Queensland, Australia. 23 p.

Troutbeck, R. J. 2014. Estimating the mean critical gap, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2461: 76–84. https://doi.org/10.3141/2461-10

Vedagiri, P.; Kadali, B. R. 2016. Evaluation of pedestrian–vehicle conflict severity at unprotected midblock crosswalks in India, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2581: 48–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/2581-06

WCC. 2014. Policy for the Provision of Pedestrian Crossings and Pedestrian/Cycle Facilities at Traffic Signal Junctions. Warwickshire County Council (WCC), UK. 8 p. Available from Internet: https://apps.warwickshire.gov.uk/api/documents/WCCC-770-190

WSCC. 2005. Policy Review of Assessment Criteria for the Installation of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities. Report No HT17(04/05). West Sussex County Council (WSCC), UK.

Zegeer, C. V.; Stewart, J. R.; Huang, H. H.; Lagerwey, P. A.; Feaganes, J.; Campbell, B. J. 2005 Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines. Report No FHWA–HRT–04–100. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Washington, DC, US. 114 p. Available from Internet: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/04100/04100.pdf