Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF
Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF
Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF
CHAPTER 23
OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILIDES
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 23-l
()verview ........................... ............. .................... ................. ............ .................... 23-1
Analysis Boundaries........................................................................................... 23-2
LOS Criteria ...... .... ........ .. .. .... ................. .... ....... ............ .... ............ ........ ............... 23-2
Required Input Data ........................................................................................... 23-4
Scope of the Methodology ... ......................................... ..................................... 23-4
Limitations of the Methodology ....................................................................... 23-5
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 23-1 Average Flow LOS Criteria for Walkways ..... .......................... ........ 23-3
Exhibit 23-2 Platoon-Adjusted LOS Criteria for Walkways ................................. 23-3
Exhibit 23-3 LOS Criteria for Stairways ....... ................ ........................................... 23-3
Exhibit 23-4 Pedestrian LOS Criteria for Shared-Use Paths ........................ ......... 23-4
Exhibit 23-5 LOS Criteria for Bicycles on Shared-Use and Exclusive Paths ...... 23-4
Exhibit 23-6 Required Input Data by Exclusive Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facility Type ........................................................................................................ 23-4
Exhibit 23-7 Flowchart for Analysis of Exclusive Off-Street Pedestrian
Facilities ................... ................................................ .... .... .... ................................ 23-7
Exhibit 23-8 Flowchart for Analysis of Pedestrian LOS on Shared Off-Street
Facili ties ............................ ................. ............... ............ .................................. ..... 23-8
Exhibit 23-9 Flowchart for Analysis of Bicycle LOS on Off-Street Facilities ...... 23-8
Exhibit 23-10 Width Adjustments for Fixed Obstacles ......................................... 23-9
Exhibit23-11 Typical Fixed-Object Effective Widths ... .................................. ..... 23-10
Exhibit 23-12 Schematic of Active Passing Events ........ ....... .......................... ..... 23-17
Exhibit 23-13 Schematic of Meeting Events ............................... ........................... 23-18
Exhibit 23-14 Effective Lanes by Path Width ....................................................... 23-19
Exhibit 23-15 Required Bicycle Passing Distance ............ .................................... 23-19
Exhibit 23-1 6 Frequency of Blocking of Two Lanes .................. .. ........................ 23-21
Exhibit 23-17 Default Va lues for Exclusive Off-Street Bicycle Facilities .......... 23-24
Exhibit 23-18 Pedestrian Circulation Space in a Pedestrian Plaza .................... 23-26
Exhibit 23-19 Effect of Vertical Climb on Horizontal Distance Walked ........... 23-27
Exhibit 23-20 List of Example Problems .. ........................... .... .............................. 23-28
1. INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities are facilities that (n) are used only V0LU~11E 3: INTfRRUPTCD H.OW
16. Urb~n Str~t FacilkrPS
by nonmotorized modes and (b) arc not considered part of an urban street or \7. Urban Slr<..'CI· 5-.!{)r11t'nts
transit facility. The second part of this definition excludes facilities located 1S. S!gnnli?P.d l ntersrrtions
19. lWSC Inh'f<.>rx!io,J!:>
directly along an urban street (e.g., bicycle lanes or sidewalks). ln general, off- 20. AWSC Interst~ction~
street facilities include those for which the characteristics of motor vehicle traffic 21. Roundabout.;
22. tntprchano•• Ramr 1erminals
do not play a strong role in determining the quality of service from the 23. Off-Street Pedestrian and
perspective of bicyclists and pedestrians. Thus, a shared-use path only 10ft from Bicycle Facilities
a roadway but separated by a sound barrier may be considered an off-street Pedestrian capacity concepts are the
facility, whereas a sidepath with a 10-ft planted buffer separating it from the same across facility types (i.e.,
exclusive off-street facilities, on-street
roadway would generally be considered an on-street facility. facilities, and transit facilities).
However, LOS thresholds for transit
In general, facilities located within approximately 35ft of an urban street are facilities allow higher levels of
not considered off-street, although the precise definition of "off-street" varies by crowding for a given LOS than do the
thresholds for nontransit facilities.
facility as described earlier. These types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities arc
Off-street facilities are those
covered in Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, and Chapter 17, Urban Street generally located more than 3S ft
Segments. The definition also excludes crosswalks and queuing areas; these arc from a roadway, although the exact
distance may vary on the basis of the
addressed in each of the chapters on intersections (Chapters 18-21 ). Pedestrian local context
components of transit facilities are addressed in the Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual (1). The 35-ft threshold is based on studies of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities (2-4) in which it was found that motor vehicle traffic influenced
pedestrian and bicycle quality of service on facilities located within at least this
distance of the roadway.
Chapter 23, Off-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, provides capacity
and level-of-service (LOS) estimation procedures for the types of facilities shown
below. Examples of each of the foll owing facility types can be found in Chapter
3, Modal Characteristics:
• Walkways: paved paths, ramps, and plazas that are generally located
more than 35 ft from an urban street as well as streets reserved for
pedestrian traffic on a full- or part-time basis;
• Stairways: staircases that are part of a longer pedestrian facility;
• Shared-usc paths: paths physically separated from highway traffic for the
use of pedestrians, bicyclists, runners, inline skaters, and other users of
nonmotorized modes; and
• Exclusive off-street bicycle paths: paths physically separated from
highway traffic for the exclusive use of bicycles.
ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES
The analysis of off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities occurs at the
segment level. A segment ends and a new segment begins when any of the
following occur:
• 111ere is a street crossing;
• The width of the facility changes significantly;
• There is an intersection with another exclusive pedestrian or bicycle
facility, where user volumes change significantly or cross flows are
created; or
• The type of facility changes (e.g., where a walkway becomes a stairway).
LOS CRITERIA
The LOS thresholds defined for each of the off-street pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are presented in this section. Three types of service measures arc
defined:
• For pedestrians on exclusive pedestrian facilities, pedestrinll space (square
feet per pedestrian);
• For pedestrians on fa(_ilities shared by pedestrians and bicycles, the
number of bicycle meeting and passing events per hour; and
• For bicycles on both shared-use and exclusive paths, a bicycle LOS score
incorporating meetings per minute, active passings per minute, presence
of a centerline, path width, and delayed passings.
Exhibit 23-1 through Exhibit 23-5 provide five LOS tables: four for pedestrian
facilities and one for bicycle facilities. /\s described in Chapter 4, Traffic Flow
and Capacity Concepts, pedestrian flow rates and speeds arc directly related to
the average space occupied by a pedestrian. These values are given for reference
in the space-based LOS tables along with the corresponding range of volume-to-
capacity (v/c) ratios; however, the actual LOS in those tables are based on space
per pedestrian.
LOS does not reflect whether i!l The LOS thresholds are based on user perception research where available
facility complies with the AOA
or other standards. and in other cases on expert judgment. LOS does not reflect whether a facility
complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (/\DA) or other standards.
Walkways
The walkway LOS tables apply to paved pedestrian paths, pedestrian zones
(exclusive pedestrian streets), walkways and ramps with up to a 5% grade, and
pedestrian walking zones through plaza areas. Exhibit 23-1 applies when
pedestrian flow along the facility is random. Exhibit 23-2 applies when platoons
of pedestrians form along the facility, for example, when a signalized crosswalk
is located at one end of the portion of the facility being anaJy7.cd.
Cross flows occu r at the intersection of two approximately perpendicular
pedestrian streams (e.g., where two wa lkways intersect or at a building
entrance). Because of the increased number of conflicts that occur between
pedestrians, walkway capacity is lower in a cross-flow situation than along other
parts of the walkway. ln cross-flow locations, the LOS E-F threshold is 13 ft2/p,
as indicated in the notes for Exhibit 23-1 and Exhibit 23-2.
Stairways
Exhibit 23-3 provides the LOS criteria for stairways.
zones (exclusive pedestrian streets), plazas, and ramps with grades exceeding
5%, as described later in the Special Cases section.
The analysis methodologies are based solely on facility characteristics and do
not consider external factors that may also affect quality of service, such as
weather, landscaping, adjacent land uses, and lighting conditions, which may
also affect users' perceptions of a facility.
Much of the material in this chapter is the result of research sponsored by the
Federal Highway Administra6on (5-7). Both commuter and recreational
bicycl ists were included in the off-street bicycle path research (7).
Pedestrian Facilities
The capacity of pedestrian facilities is based on research conducted on
constrained facil ities (e.g., bridges and underground passageways), where there
is no opportunity for pedestrians to wa lk outside the designated area. Off-street
pedestrian facilities, in contrast, typically have no barriers keeping pedestrians to
the designated path. As a result, these facilities reach effective failure (i.e., Where the opportunity exists,
pedestrian spillover) at densities less than their capacity. for this reason, in pedestrians wtll spill over the edges
of a walkway at densities below
combination with considerations of general pedestrian comfort, off-street capacity.
walkways arc desirably designed to achieve LOS C or better, based on pedestrian
space, rather than for capacity conditions. The methodologies arc generally
appropriate regardless of the type of surface used for the pedestrian facility.
Shared-Use Paths
The pedestrian shared-vse- The methodology for shared-use paths does not account for the effect on
path methodology does not
account for the effects of pedestrian LOS of path width or the impact of meeting and passing events. No
nonbicyc/ist users of the path credible data were found on fixed objects and their effects on users of these types
on pedestrian LOS.
of facilities. The methodology also does not account for the effect of nonbicyclist
users of the path (e.g., skateboarders, inline skaters) on pedestrians. However, it
is expected that pedestrians will often encounter these users on shared-use paths
and that because of their higher speeds, these users can have a negative effect on
pedestrian LOS.
The methodology for bicycle LOS on shared-use paths incorporates the
effects of five user groups: bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, inline skaters, and
child bicyclists. However, several path user groups that may be a part of the mix
on some trails are not incorporated, including push scooter users, wheelchair
users, equestrians, cross-country skiers, and users of electric vehicles. The
methodology is based on research conducted only on paved surfaces and may
not be applicable to soft surfaces such as gravel, dirt, or wood chips. The
methodology is not applicable for paths wider than 20ft. This methodology was
developed from data collected on two-way paths but may be applied to one-way
paths by setting opposing volumes equal to zero.
Some shared-use paths are signed or striped, or both, to segregate pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. The research that developed the shared-use-path
methodology did not address those kinds of paths; guidance on such paths may
be found in the Special Cases section.
2. METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
Off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities serve only nonmotori zed traffic Sidewalks and bicycle faalities along
urban streets are addressed in
and are separated from motor vehicle traffic to the exten t that such traffic does Chapter 17, Urban Street Segments.
not affect their quality of service. Thus, although sidewalks primarily serve only Bicycle facilities on mulblane and
pedestrians, they are not addressed in this chapter- the quality of service two-lane highways are addressed in
Chapters 14 and 15, respectively.
afforded to pedestrians on sidewalks depends in part on the presence and
characteristics of the adjacent motor vehicle traffic.
Procedures for estimating LOS are separated into three main categories:
exclusive pedestriun facilities, exclusive bicycle facilities, and shared pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Separate methodologies arc provided to assess pedestrian
and bicycle I .OS on shared fa cilities.
There are three general categories of exclusive pedestrian facilities:
walkways, cross-flow areas, and stairways. The LOS thresholds for each category
are different, but all are based on the concept of space per pedestrian, which is a
measure of pedestrian comfort and mobility. Exhibit 23-7 illustrates the steps
taken to determine the LOS of exclusive off-street pedestrian facilities.
l
Step 2: Calculate the pedestrian flow rate
I Step 5:
l
Calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio I
LOS for pedestrians on shared off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities is
based on the number of events during which a pedestriun either meets an
oncoming bicyclist or is passed by a bicyclist. As the number of events increases,
the pedestrian LOS decreases because of reduced comfort. Exhibit 23-8 shows the
steps taken to detennine shared-facility LOS.
Exhibit 23-8
Step 1: Gather input data
Flowchart for Analysis of
Pedestrian LOS on Shared
Hourly pedestrian and bicycle demands by direction
Off-Street Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian speeds
l
r Step 2: Calculate the number of bicycle passing and meeting events I
l
Step 3: Determine LOS
Exhibit 23-4
Exhibit 23·9
Step 1: Gather input data
Flowchart for Analysis of
Bicycle LOS on Off-Street
For each modal user (pedestrians, bicyclists_ inline skaters_ runners_ and child bicyclists).·
Facilities Hourly demands by direction, speeds, and mode split
For the facility:
Path width, centerline presence
l
I Step 2: calculate active passings per minute 1
l
I Step 3: calculate meetings per minute I
l
I Step 4: Determine the number of lanes I
1 step
l
s: calculate the probability of delayed passing 1
l
I Step 6: calculate delayed passings per minute l
l
Step 7: Determine LOS
Exhibit 23-5
!
I Step 8: Adjust LOS for low-volume paths I
where
We e ffective walkway width (ft),
WT total walkway width at a given point along walkway (ft), and
W0 sum of fixed -object effective widths and linear-feature shy distances at
a given point along walkway (ft).
Exhibit23-10 illustrates a portion of a sidewalk or walkway. The general Shy distance is a buffe r that
pedestrians leave between
concepts shown arc applicable both to sidewalks along urban streets and to themselves and linear objects along a
exclusive off-street paths not located adjacent to a street. Linear features such as walkway, such as curbs and building
faces.
the street curb, the low wall, and the building face each havt;~ associated shy
d istances. The shy distance is the buffer that pedestrians give themselves to avoid
accidentally stepping off the curb, b rushing against a building face, or getting too
close to other pedestrians standing under awnings or wind ow shopping. Fixed
objects, such as the tree, have effective widths associatt~d with them. The JLt:ed-
object effective width includes the object's physical width, any functionally
unusable space (e.g., the space between a parking meter and the curb or the
space in front of a bench occupied by people's legs and belongings), and the
buffe r given the object by pedestrians.
Exhibit 23-10
Width Adjustments for Fixed
Obstacles
Exhibit 23-10 also shows that the effective width of a fixed object extends
over an effective length that is considerably longer than the object's physical
leng th. The effective length represents the portion of the walkway that is
functionally unusable because pedestrians need to move to one side ahead of
time to get around a fixed object. The effective length of a fixed object is assumed
to be five times the object's effective width.
Typically, a walkway operational analysis evaluates the portion of the
walkway with the narrowest effective width, since this section forms the
constraint on pedestrian flow. A design analysis identifies the minimum effective
width that must be maintained along the length of the walkway to avoid
pedestrian queuing or spillover.
Exhibit 23-11 gives the effective wid ths of a variety of typical fixed objects
found along on- and off-street pedestrian facilities. The values in Exhibit 23-11
can be used when specific walkway configurations arc not available.
Stairways
Pedestrians tend to walk in A stairway's capacity is largely affected by its wid th. Unlike walking on a
lines or lanes on smirways; level surface, traversing stairs tends to make people walk in lines or lanes. The
thus, meaningful increases in
capacity are related to the w idth of a stairway determines both the number of distinct lines that can
number ofpedestrian lanes traverse the stair and the side-to-side spacing between them, affecting both the
available.
abil ity of faster pedestrizms to pass slower-moving pedestrians and the level of
interference between adjacent lines of people. The consequence is that
meaningful increases in capacity are not linearly proportional to the width but
occur in increments of about 30 in. (1).
On stairways (in contrast to walkways), a minor pedestrian flow in the Small reverse nows on stairways
should be assumed to use one
opposing direction can result in reduced capacity disproportionate to the pedestrian lane (30 ln.) of width.
magnitude of the reverse flow. As a result, a small reverse flow should be
assumed to occupy one pedestrian lane or 30 in. of the stair's width. For a
stairway with an effective width of 60 in. (5 ft), a small reverse flow could
consume half its capacity (1). The allowance for small reverse flows, when used,
is included as part of the W0 term in Equation 23-1.
where
v 15 pedestrian flow rate during peak 15 min (p/h),
vh pedestrian demand during analysis hour (p/h), and
PHF peak hour factor.
However, if peak-15-min pedestrian volumes are available, the highest IS-
min volume can be used directly without the application of a peak hour factor.
Next, the peak 15-min flow is converted into a unit flow rate (pedestrians per
minute per foot of effective path width):
VIS
v = - --.!..:::- Equation 23-3
p lSxWc
where Vp is pedestrian flow per unit width (p/ft/min) and all other variables are
as previously defined.
Stairways
Because pedestrians use more energy to ascend stairs than to descend them, Critical pedestrian nows on stairs
occur in the up direction.
lower flow rates typically occur in the ascending direction. For this reason, when
stairs serve both directions simultaneously or when the same stairway will be
used primarily in the up d irection during some time periods and primarily in the
down direction during other time periods, the upward flow rate should be used
for analysis and design (1). The calculation of pedestrian fk>w rate for stairways
is otherwise the same as that described for walkways and cross-flow areas.
Equation 23-4
where
A 1, pedestrian space (ft2/p),
SP pedestrian speed (ft/min), and
v1, pedestrian flow per unit width (p/ft/min).
Cross-Flow Areas
A cross flow is a pedestrian flow that is approximately perpendicular to and Cross-flow LOS thresholds are
identical to those for walkways,
crosses another pedestrian stream, for example, at the intersecti(m of two except for the LOS E-F threshold.
walkways or at a building entrance. In general, the Jesser of the two flows is
referred to as the cross-flow condition. The same procedure used to estimate
walkway space is used to analyze pedestrian facilities with cross flows. As
shown in the footnotes to Exhibit 23-1 and Exhibit 23-2, the LOSE threshold (i.e.,
capacity) in cross-flow situations occurs at a lower density than that for
wa lkways without cross flows (12).
Stai!Ways
Research (13) has developed I .OS thresholds based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers stairway standards, which provide the space and flow
values given in Exhibit 23-3. As with walkways, s tairway LOS is described by the
service measu re of pedestrian space, expressed as square feet per pedestrian.
SHARED-USE PATHS
Shared-use pedestrian- bicycle paths typically are open to users of
nonmotorized modes such as bicyclists, skateboarders, and wheelchair users.
Shared-use paths are often constructed to serve areas without city streets and to
provide recreational opportunities for the public. These paths are also common
on uni versity campuses, where motor vehicle traffic and parking arc often
restricted. In the United States, there arc few paths exclusively for pedestrians -
most off-street paths are for shared use.
Bicycles- because of their markedly higher speeds - have a negative effect
on pedestrian capacity and LOS on shared-use paths. However, it is difficult to
establish a bicycle- pedestrian equivalent because the relationsh ip between the
two differs depending on their respective flows and directional splits, among
other factors. This section covers pedestrian LOS on shared-use paths. Bicyclists
have a different perspective, as discussed in the following section.
Equation 23-5 F
"
=ib.._(I-
PHF
sp) Sb
Equation 23-6 f?
"'
= Q""
PHF
(1+ sS Jp
where
FP number of passing events (events/h),
F,. number of meeting events (events/h),
Q,1, bicycle demand in sa me direction (bicycles/h),
Qob bicycle demand in opposing direction (bicycles/h),
PHF peak hour factor,
51, mean pedestrian speed on path {mi/h), and
Sb mean bicycle speed on path (mi/h).
Meeting events create less Meeting events allow direct visual contact, so opposing-direction bicycles
hindrance than overtaking
events. tend to cause less hindrance to pedestrians. To account for the reduced
hindrance, a factor of 0.5 is applied to the meeting events on the basis of
theoretical considerations (7 4). Where sufficient data are available on the relative
effects of meetings and passings on hindrance, this fa ctor can be calibrated to
local conditions. Because the number of events calculated in the previous step
was based on hourly demand, a peak hour factor must be applied to convert
them to the equivalent demand based on peak 15-min conditions. The total
number of events is
where F is the total events on the path in events per hour and the other variables
are as defined previously.
where
P(v,) probability of passing user of mode i,
U speed of average bicyclist (mi/h),
v, speed of path user of mode i (mi/h),
L length of path segment (mi), and
x = distance from average bicyclist to user (mi).
Exhibit 23-12 provides a schematic of active passing cvenlc;.
L Exhibit 23-12
Schematic of Active Passing
X
lb
dx
Events
where F(x) is the cumulative probability of normal distribution, and the other
variables are as defined previously.
The expected number of times that the average bicyclist passes users of mode
i over the entire path segment is then determined by multiplying P(v) by the
density of users of mode i and summing over all portions of the segment. The
number of passings per minute is then obtained by dividing the result by the
number of minutes required for the bicyclist to traverse the path segment:
n q; 1
A;== 'I:P(v;)x-x-dxi Equation 23-11
j -1 J.l; t
where
A; expected passings per minute of mode i by average bicyclist,
q; directional hourly flow rate of mode i (modal users/h),
f..l; average speed of mode i (mi/h),
path segment travel time for average bicyclist (min), and
dx; length of discrete segment j (mi).
TI1e other variables arc as previously defined.
Research (7) found that setting dx equal to 0.01 mi is appropriate for the
purposes of the calculations shown in Equation 23-11 and below.
Equation 23-11 provides expected passings by the average bicyclist for mode
i. To determine total active passings of all modes, Equation 23-11 must be
repeated for each individual mode and then summed:
AT== 'LA;
i
Equation 23-12
where Ar is the expected active pa!:iSings per minute by the average bicyclist
during the peak 15 min, and the other variables are as defined previously.
passed by the average bicyclist, assuming that no user enters or exits the path at
an intermediate point:
where M 1 is the meetings per minute of users already on the path segment and U
is the speed of the average bicyclist in miles per hour. The other variables arc as
previously defined.
In addition to users already on the path segment, a number of users w ho
have yet to enter the segment will meet the average bicyclist within the segment.
The probability of this occurrence is
Equation 23-14
where
probability of meeting opposing user of mode i,
V; speed of path user of mode i (mi/h),
X distance of user beyond end of path segment (mi), and
u speed of average bicyclist (mi/h).
Since v 0 ; is distributed normally, the probabmty in Equation 23-14 can be
readily calculated from the area under the standard normal curve. The length of
path beyond the analysis segment that may supply users who wi ll be met by the
average bicyclist is defined as x*. By dividing x* into 11 small discrete pieces, each
of length dx, the average probability of meeting a modal user from each piece can
be estimated by Equation 23-10. Although some meetings will occur with very
fast path users located greater than L distance beyond the end of the segment
when the average bicyclist enters, setting x* equal to Lis sufficient to guarantee
that at least 99% of meetings will be captured (7). Exhibit 23-13 provides a
schematic of meeting events.
Exhibit 23-13
Schematic of Meeting Events
L
X dx
Similar to the process for calculating number of active passings (Equation 23-
11), the estimation of number of meetings with users from a particular mode
group not on the path segment when the average bicyclist enters is
II q. 1
Equation 23-15 M 2; =LP(v0 Jx-' x-dxi
j-1 f.J.; t
where M2; is the expected meetings per minute of users of mode i located beyond
the end of the path segment at the time the average bicycle enters the segment,
and the other variables arc as previously defined.
Finally, the total number of expected meetings per minute during the peak
15 min Mr is determined by adding M 1 to the sum of M 2, across all mode groups:
With the values in Exhibit 23-1 5, the probability that a given section will be
vacant of a given mode for at least the required p assing distance p; can be
estima ted by using a Poisson distribution. The probability of observing at least
one modal user in the passing section is the complement of the probability of
observing a vacant section. The probabili ty P..; of observing a blocked passing
section for mode i is
Equation 23-17
where
P, 1 probability of passing section's being blocked by mode i,
p; distance req uired to pass mode i (mi), and
Two-Lane Paths
On a two-lane path, delayed passing occurs when, within the distance
required to complete a pass p, the average bicyclist encounters one of the
following: traffic in both directions, each blocking a single lane, or no traffic in
the subject direction in conjunction with traffic in the opposing direction that is
being overtaken by an opposing bicyclist. Note that these situa tions are mutually
exclusive. The delayed p assing probabilities in the subject and opposing
directions are
Equation 23·18 pds = pnoP,s + P,,o(l - Pn.J(1- pdo)
Equation 23-19 prlo = P,,oP,,s + P,,s (1 - P,uJ(1- PdJ
where
P11< probabili ty of delayed passing in subject direction,
P,1., probability of delayed passing in opposing direction,
P,., probability of blocked lane in opposing direction, and
P,~ probability of blocked lane in subject direction.
Solving Equation 23-18 and Equation 23-19 for Pd< results in
Equation 23-20
p = pno pns + P,o (1- P,~~ ) 2
ds 1- P,oP,s (1 - P,o)(1- P,,s)
Since P,0 and P,. are calculated from Equation 23-17, Equation 23-20 can be
readily solved for Pds·
Three-Lane Paths
The operations of three-lane paths are more complicated than those of two-
lane paths, since there is a greater variety of possible scenarios that may occu r.
The methodology includes several limiting assumptions regarding user behavior:
• Bicyclists in the subject direction use only the two rightmost lanes,
• Bicyclists in the opposing direction use only the two leftmost lanes,
• Passing mancuv·e rs occur only in the middle lane and never in the left
lane, and
• Groups of users may sometimes block the two lanes allocated to that
direction but cannot block all three lanes.
As a result, a delayed passing occurs in two cases: (a) traffic in the subject
direction is blocking the rightmost lane in conjunction with opposing traffic
occupying the other two lanes, or (b) side-by-side users are blocking the two
rightmost lanes in the subject direction. The probabilities of the occurrence of a
delayed passing in the subject and opposing directions are given by
Equation 23-22
pdo = P,,o [Pbs + P,,_~ (1- ~Is)]+ pbo
where P00 is the probability of two blocked lanes in the opposing direction, Pbs is
the p robability of two blocked lanes in the subject direction, and all other
variables are as previously defined.
Equation 23-21 and Equation 23-22 are simultaneous equations with two
unknowns, Prls and Pd"· Defining D as PJ.- Prlu gives the following equation:
D =[(Pbs - pbo )+ (Pnspbo - P,wPbJ]/(1- P11)~,J Equation 23-23
Therefore, P""' and P,.;, the probabilities that a user of mode i will block two
lanes in the opposing and subject directions, respectively, are found by
multiplying the frequency of blocking two lanes by a particular user of mode i
(Exhibit 23-16) by the probability that a user of mode i will be encountered,
which was given by Equation 23-17. This process results in
Equation 23-25
pbsi = F; X P,,~;
Equation 23-26
p boi = F; X P,oi
where F; is the frequency with which mode i will block two Janes, from Exhibit
23-16, and all other variables are as previously defined. The probability that a
user of any mode w ill block two lanes is thus given by
Equation 23- 28
The probabilities that only a single lane will be blocked by a user of a given
mode i, Pqsi and Pqo;, are thus derived from the probability that at least one lane
will be blocked (from Equation 23-17) min us the probability that two lanes will
be blocked (from Equation 23-25 and Equation 23-26). These probabilities are
where k$; and k"; are the densities of users of mode i in users per mile in the
subject and opposing directions, respectively, and all other variables are as
previously defined.
The probabilities that a user of any mode will block a single lane are thus
given by
Equation 23-31
Equation 23·32
The values of P,. and P1" from Equation 23-27 and Equation 23-28, and the
values of P,, and P,11, from Equation 23-31 and Equation 23-32 can now be
substituted into Equation 23-23 and Equation 23-24 to determine the probability
of delayed passing, P11, . This delayed passing factor was calibrated by using peak
hour volumes, rather than peak 15-min volumes. Therefore, a peak hour factor is
applied to convert Ar from peak 15-min flow rate conditions back to hourly
conditions.
Four-Lane Paths
On four-Jane paths, the methodology assumes that the path operates
similarly to a divided four-lane highw ay, such that the probability of delayed
passing is independent of opposing users, since no passing occurs in the leftmost
lanes. Thus, the probability of delayed passing P", is equivalent to the probability
that both subject lanes will be blocked 1\, which can be found by using Equation
23-25 and Equation 23-27.
This delayed passing fa ctor was calibrated by using peak hour volumes
rather than peak 15-min volumes. Therefore, a peak hour factor is applied to
corwert Ar from peak 15-min flow rate conditions back to hourly conditions.
where
E weighted events per minute = meetings per minute+
10 x (active passings per minute);
RW reciprocal of pa th width= 1/path width (ft);
CL 1 if trail has centerline, 0 if no centerline; and
DP min [delayed passings per minute, 1.5].
With the exception of the special cases discussed in Step 8 below, the
bicyclist perception index is used d irectly with Exhibit 23-5 to determine bicyclist
LOS on off-street facilities. As was the case with shared pedestrian facilities, the
LOS E- F threshold docs not reflect the capacity of an off-street bicycle facility,
but rather a point at which the number of meetin g and passing events results in a
severely diminished experience for bicyclists using the path.
Chapter 23/0 ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-23 Methodology
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/2010
3 . APPLICATIONS
DEFAULT VALUES
For pedestrians on off-street paths, a default average speed of 3.4 mi/h for
pedestrians and 12.8 mi/ h for bicycles can be applied in the absence of local data
(7). Default values for off-street bicycle facilities are summarized in Exhibit 23-17:
ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES
As stated in this chapter's introduction, exclusive pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are analyzed at the segment level, with segment endpoints being
defined by street crossing locations, changes in path width, intersecHons with
other paths that create cross flows or change path demand, and transition points
to other types of facili ties (e.g., from path to ramp). In most cases, the minimum
segment length will be around 0.25 mi, and the maximum segment length will be
2 to 3 mj (7). Certain kinds of facilities, such as stairways, cross-flow areas, and
pedestrian plazas, will have shorter segment lengths.
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
Operational Analysis
A common application of operational analysis is to compute the LOS of a
facility under existing or future demand. The effective width o f the facility is an
input to the calcu lation an d LOS is an output.
Design Analysis
Design applications require that an LOS goal be established, with the Designing for an effective width.
primary output being the facility d esign characteristics required or the maximu m
user volumes allowable for the LOS goal. For instance, a design analysis for a
pedestrian walkway may estimate the minimum effective width WE needed to
achieve a design LOS value. In this case, the m aximum pedestrian unit flow rate
for the desired service level wou ld be determined from Exhibit 23-1 or Exhibit
23-2. The effective width would be computed by solving the pedestrian unit
flow-rate equation backward. To avoid pedestrian spillover, it is desirable to
design a walkway to achieve LOS Cor better (i.e., a m aximum of 10 p/min/ft).
Stairways arc desirably designed to ach ieve LOS Cor D.
Similarly, the achievable path flow rate Qr can be solved as the primary Determining se!Yice volumes.
output. For exclusive bicycle facilities, the minimum LOS perception score for the
design LOS would be determined from Exhibit 23-5. By holding all but one path
user group's demand constant and solving the events equation backward, the
service volume for the user grou p of interest can be computed.
SPECIAL CASES
Pedestrian Plazas
Pedestrian plazas are large, paved areas that serve multiple functions,
including pedestrian circulation, special events, and seating. The circulati on
function is of interest here, although the design of a plaza must consider how all
of the functions interact. For example, queues from areas designated for food
vendors may intrude into a pedestrian circulation route, reducing the route's
effective width, or two circulation routes may intersect each other, creating a
cross-flow area. In addition, research has shown that the circulation and a menity
functions of a plaza sometimes conflict, since people tend to linger longer in
plazas that do not act as thoroughfares (9).
The exclusive pedestrian walkway methodology can be used to analyze
pedestrian circulation routes through pedestrian plazas. The methodology does
not address the need or desire to have space for amenities within a pedestrian
plaza. The effective width of such a route is not as easily identified as that of a
walkway, because the edges of the circulation area are often undefined.
However, pedestrians will tend to take the shortest available route across the
plaza, as illustrated in Exhibit 23-18.
Exhibit 23-18
Pedestrian Circulation Space
in a Pedestrian Plaza
Pedestrian Zones
Pedestrian zones are streets dedicated to exclusive pedestrian use on a full-
or part-time basis. These zones can be analyzed from an operational standpoint
by using the exclusive pedestrian walkway methodology, as long as the kinds of
obstructions listed in Exhibit 23-11, such as sidewalk cafe tables, are taken into
account. Other performance measures may be considered that assess the street's
attractiveness to pedestrians, since a successful pedestrian zone is expected to be
relatively crowded (i.e.r to have a lower LOS). Although an uncrowded zone
would have a high LOS, it could be perceived by pedestrians as being a potential
personal security risk, because of the lack of other users.
The HCM methodology is not suitable for pedestrian zones during times
when delivery vehicles arc allowed to use the street. The HCM methodology is
also not applicable to the analysis of a low-speed street (e.g., a Dutch-style
woonerf> shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles.
5% 6% 8% Exhibit 23· 19
3,000
Effect of Vertical Climb on
Horizontal Distance Walked
14%
!
I
I
soo
0
50 100
' - - ·--
150 200 250 300
Vertkal Distance Climbed (ft)
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
The Facts
The following information was collected in the field for this path:
• Q,b = bicycle volume in same direction = 100 bicycles/h;
• Q,>b =bicycle volume in opposing direction= 100 bicycles/h;
• v 15 = peak 15-min pedestrian volume = 100 pedestrians;
• PI-IF = peak hour factor= 0.83;
• Sr = average pedestrian speed = 4.0 ft/s (2.7 mi/h);
• Sb= average bicycle speed= 16.0 ft/s (10.9 mi/h); and
• No pedestrian platooning was observed.
F
P
=~(~-
PHF
sp)
Sb
F
"'
= Qob
PHF
(1 + SP)
S b
Example Problems Page 23-28 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/20 10
F =(FP +0.5F"')
F = (90 events/h + (0.5)(150 events/h))
F =165 events/h
Step 3: Determine Shared-Use-Path Pedestrian LOS
The shared-usc-path LOS is determined from Exhibit 23-4. The value ofF,
165 eventc;/h, falls into the LOSE range. Since this value is rather low, what
would happen if a parallel, 5-ft-wide, pedestrian-only path were provided?
v = - -v1s
=-
p 15xWF.
lOOp
v =--.::;__
P 15x5ft
vp =1.3 p/ft/min
Step 4.3: Calculate Average Pedestrian Space
Average pedestrian sp ace is determined by rearranging Equation 23-4:
A,, = s,, I v,,
AP =(4.0 ft/s)(60 s/rnin) / (1.3 p/ft/rnin)
A 11 =18Ste/p
Chapter 2310ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fad lities Page 23-29 Example Problems
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/2010
Discussion
The existing mixed-usc path operates at LOSE for pedestrians. Pedestrian
LOS would increase to LOS A if a parallel, 5-ft-wide pedestrian path were
provided.
The Facts
A new shared-use path is being planned. On the basis of data from a similar
faci lity in the region, it is estimated that the path will have a peak-hour volume
of 340 users, a peak hour factor of 0.90, and a 50/50 directional split. The path will
be 10ft wide, with no obstacles, and will not have a centerline. The segment
analyzed here is 3 mi long.
Example Problems Page 23-30 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicyde Facilities
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 20 I 0
II qi 1
A; = LP(v;)x - x - dxi
j ;:l J.l; t
104 1
Ail =0.4975 X - X -(0.01) = 0.0029
12.8 14
Repeating this procedure for all slices from 1 to n and summing the results
yields
Passings of bicycles per minute= 0.0029 + A2 + ... +A, = 0.19
With the same methodology for each mode, the following active passings per
minute are found for the other modes:
• Pedestrians, 1.74;
• Runners, 0.30;
• Inline skaters, 0.09; and
• Child bicyclists, 0.10.
Total active passings are then determined by using Equation 23-12:
AT= LA;
i
Total passings per minute = (O.J 9 + 1.74 + 0.30 + 0.09 + 0.10) = 2.42
M-U"!L_
1 - ~
60 i l-1;
M l = (12.8/60) X [(104/12.8) + (38/3.4) + (19/6 .6) + (19/10.1) + (9/7.9)] = 5.36
Meetings per minute of users not yet on the path segment must be calculated
separately for each mode. For the number of bicycles passed per minute, the
section of path beyond the study segment is considered as broken into n slices,
each of which has length dx = 0.01 mi, and a total segment length X equivalent to
L (3 mi). Then, for the first slice, from Equation 23-14:
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-31 Example Problems
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/2010
M T = (Ml + _LM2i)
Total meetings per minute= [5.36 + 1.54 + 0.63 + 0.31 + 0.31 + 0.16] = 8.31
Example Problems Page 23-32 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
P Tdr =I - n
m
1- pmd•
Results
The results indicate that the path would operate close to its fun ctional
capacity. A slightly wider path would provide three effective Janes and a better
LOS.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-33 Example Problems
December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/2010
5. REFERENCES
Many of these references can 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
be found in the Technical
Reference Library in Volume 4. Douglass/ Inc. and K Hunter-Zaworski. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity
1
II
Highway Capacity Monua/2010
VOLUME 3 INDEX
The index to Volume 3 lists the text citations of the terms defined in the
Glossary (Volu me 1, Chapter 9). Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are separately indexed. In
the index listings, the first number in each hyphenated pair of numbers indicates
the chapter, and the number after the hyphen indicates the page within the
chapter.
Diamond interchange, '16-28, 19-42,22-2, 22-40, 22-41, 22-42, 22-43, 22-69, 22-70,
22-3, 22-4, 22-7,22-9, 22-11,22-13, 22-71, 22-72
22-29, 22-33, 22-34, 22-36, 22-56, 22-57, Follow-up headway, 19-3, 19-5, 19-6,
22-58 19-7,19-15,19-16,19-18, 19-42, 19-45,
Directional flow rate, 23-10 21-5, 21-23
Directional split, 23-4, 23-7, 23-24 Force-off, 18-21, 18-22
Downstream, 16-10,16-11,17-5, 17-6, Fou r-phase pattern, 20-1, 20-4, 20-5
18-9, 19-:1 ,19-41,20-2,21 -2,21-5,22-1, Free-flow speed, 16-7, 16-8,16-10, 16-11,
22-5, 22-7, 22-9, 16-17,16-18,16-34,16-35, 16-39,16-40,
Dual entry, 18-8, 18-21, 18-76 16-44,16-45, 17-6,17-7, 17-32,17-33,
Duration of congestion, 18-75 17-34, 17-36,17-43,17-74,17-78, 17-83,
Dwell time, 16-32, 17-16,17-17,17-61, 19-27, 19-28
17-62, 17-71, 17-95, 17-96 i"o'reeway, 16-6,18-77,21-5,21-25,22-1,
22-2, 22-3, 22-5, 22-7, 22-16, 22-38,
22-43, 22-47, 22-48, 22-49, 22-50, 22-53,
E 22-54, 22-56, 22-67
Effective green time, 17-37,17-41,17-61, J;ull stop, 16-17,17-40,17-41,17-42,
17-96, 18-1 2, 18-39,18-40, IR-48, 18-55, 17-43
18-72, 18-78, '18-92, 18-93, 18-102, Fully actuated control, 18-1 7, 18-28,
22-31, 22-32,22-34, 22-60, 22-61, 22-66 18-58,18-59,18-86
Effective red time, 18-48, 18-79
Effective walk time, 18-62, 18-64, 18-66,
'18-97 G
Effective walkway width, 23-3, 23-4 Gap, 17-17,17-22, 17-49, 17-52, 17-87,
85th percentile s peed, 16-30, 18-25, 18-8, 18-21, 18-30, 18-39, 18-40, 18-76,
18-26, 18-70, 18-80, .18-97 18-92,19-1, 19-5, 19-6,19-7,19-8, 19-9,
Empirical model, 19-1, 22-17, 22-55 19-10,19-12, 19-'1 6, 19-20,19-21,19-22,
Entrance ramp, 22-56 19-24, 19-25, 19-31, 19-33, 19-34, 19-35,
Entry flow, 21 -4,21-5,21-10,21-13, 19-37, 19-41, 19-42, 19-46,19-51, 19-53,
21-14,21-30,21-31,21 -35,21 -36 21-4,21-7,21-24,21-26
Event, Hl-11, 19-34, 19-35, 20-6, 23-4 Gap acceptance, 19-1, 19-5, 19-12,21-26
Excess wait time, 17-1 6,17-1 7, 17-65, Gap out, 18-21, 18-39
17-66, 17-70, 17-95, 17-98 Generalized service volume table, 16-26,
Exclusive off-street bicycle paths, 23-1 16-27
Exclusive turn lane, 17-4,17-11,18-4, Geometric condition, 16-25, 16-30, 17-71,
18-8, 18-16, 18-24, 18-33 17-72,17-77,17-78, 18-80,19-7,1 9-30,
Exit flow, 17-29, 21-4, 21-10, 21 -29 19-36, 19-39, 20-8, 21-21, 22-15
Exit ramp, 22-3 Geometric delay, 17-39
Green time, 18-38, 18-78, 18-93, 18-102,
22-15, 22-26, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29, 22-30,
F 22-31, 22-32, 22-33, 22-34, 22-57, 22-60,
Facility, 16-5, 16-6, 16-10, 16-18, 16-21, 22-61, 22-63, 22-66
16-23, 16-24, 16-29, 16-35, 16-36, 16-40,
16-41, 16-45, 23-4, 23-24
Fixed-object effective width, 17-47,
H
]7-86, 23-3 Headway, 17-17, 17-22,17-63, 17-64,
Flared approach, 19-3, 19-5, 19-4'1 17-66, 17-97,18-89, lB-105, 19-2, 19-3,
r low rate, 16-2, 16-3,17-2,17-3,18-2, 19-7, 19-15, 19-16, 19-JH, 19-31,19-32,
I8-3, 19-2, 19-9, 19-10, 20-3, 20-5, 21 -4, 19-33, 19-34, 19-35, 19-36, 19-40, 19-44,
21-5,22-9,22-15,22-22, 23-11'), 23-17, 19-45, 19-50, 20-2, 20-4, 20-5, 20-6,
Flow ratio, 18-9, 18-34, lB-41, JB-42, 20-7,20-8, 20-11,20-12,20-14,20-15,
18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 22-36, 22-31;, 22-39, 20-16,20-17,20-23,20-25, 20-26,21-23,
22-55
Heavy vehicle, 16-31, 17-16, 17-18, 17-58, Lane d istribution, 19-4, 19-10, 19-15,
17-71, 17-90, 17-92, 18-8, 18-10, 18-14, 22-16, 22-55
18-35,18-36,18-76,19-2, 19-15,19-16, Lane group, 16-11, 17-4, 18-4, 18-5,
19-38, 19-43, 20-3, 20-5, 20-11, 20-12, 22-11, 22-12, 22-15
20-20, 20-22, 20-23, 21-2, 21-6,21-8, Lane group delay, 18-56
21-10,21 -12, 21-18,21 -22,21 -23,21 -28, Lane utilization, 18-8, 18-14, 18-15,
21-33, 22-15, 22-37, 22-58, 22-63 18-35, 18-38, 18-76, 18-77, 18-87,21-14,
Hindrance, 23-8 21-15, 21-22, 21-33, 22-1, 22-7, 22-9,
22-10,22-14,22-16,22-17,22-18,22-19,
22-20, 22-21, 22-22, 22-24, 22-32, 22-54,
I 22-55, 22-58, 22-59, 22-64, 22-65
Impedance, 19-6, 19-11,19-13,19-18, Lane width, 17-19,18-8, 18-16,18-27,
19-21,19-2.1, 19-24,19-45,19-46,19-53 18-35, I 8-36, 18-76, 18-80, 18-87, 21-3,
incident, 16-27 22-15, 22-24, 22-59, 22-65
Incremental delay, 18-46, 18-48, 18-49, Level of service (LOS), 16-7, 16-8, 16-9,
18-55, 18-56, 18-72, 18-82, 18-92 17-6,17-7,17-8,18-5,18-6,18-7,19-1,
Influence area, 17-l, 18-1 19-2, 20-1, 20-2, 21-1, 22-11, 22-12,
Initial queue, 16-2, 16-10, 16-11, 17-2, 22-13, 23-2, 23-3, 23-4
17-13,18-2, 18-8,18-14, 18-22,18-46, Link, 17-22,17-45, 17-50,17-51,17-56,
18-49, 18-51, 18-52, 18-53, 18-54, 18-56, 17-57, 17-58, 17-66, 17-87, 17-89, 17-92,
18-57, 18-59, 18-72, 18-74, 18-75, 18-87, 17-94, 17-99, 22-11, 22-26
18-93, 22-30, 22-33 Link length, 17-12, 17-19, 17-33
Initial queue delay, 18-46, 18-49, 18-54, Load factor, 16-32, 17-16, 17-18, 17-65,
18-56, 18-72 17-71, 17-95
Inputs, 17-80,18-17, 18-28, 18-89,19-18, Local street, 16-6, 16-13, 17-24
21-24,22-37,22-46,22-47,23-17,23-19 Loop ramp, 22-4, 22-7
Interchange ramp terminal, 16-16, 16-18, Lost time, 17-37, 17-74, 18-40, 18-41,
16-21, 17-28, 17-45, 17-55, 22-1, 22-2, 18-42, 18-44, 18-45, 18-78, 22-9, 22-14,
22-5, 22-14, 22-15, 22-16, 22-26, 22-32, 22-26, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29,22-30, 22-31,
22-46, 22-53, 22-55 22-32, 22-33, 22-34, 22-58, 22-60, 22-63,
Jntemallink, 22-10, 22-16, 22-17, 22-29, 22-65, 22-66
22-30, 22-32, 22-60, 22-65
Interrup ted flow, 19-38, 20-20
Intersection delay, 17-82, 19-48
M
Interval, 16-1, 16-2, 16-30, 17-2, 17-3, Macroscopic model, 21-26
17-38, 17-77, 17-81, 18-2, 18-13, 18-18, Max out, 18-21, 18-39, 18-58
18-19, 18-20, 18-21, 18-22, 18-39, 18-40, Maximum green, 18-8,1.8-17, 18-18,
18-47, 18-48, 18-51, 18-52, 18-55, 18-62, 18-19, 18-40, 18-55, 18-58, 18-75, 18-76,
18-64, 18-75, 18-76, 18-80, 18-89, 18-96, 18-89, 18-90, 18-92, 18-95
22-15, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29, 22-30, 22-3t Maximum recall, 18-17, 18-18, 18-20
22-32, 22-33, 22-60 Median, 16-36, 16-39, 16-40, 16-41, 16-44,
Isolated intersection, 16-6, 17-6, 18-14, 16-45,17-9, 17-12, 17-16, 17-19,17-32,
18-82, 19-1,20-2 17-33,17-68,17-69,17-70, 17-74,18-20,
18-27,19-2,19-3, 19-12,19-22,19-25,
19-31, 19-49, 19-50
K Meeting, 23-2, 23-4, 23-6, 23-8, 23-9,
K-factor, 16-26 23-12, 23-17, 23-21, 23-22
Merge, 19-9, 19-10, 22-7
Microscopic model, 19-41
L Minimum green, 16-30, 17-77, 18-8,
Lane 1, 20-12,20-13 18-19, 18-20, 18-23, 18-58, 18-76, 22-15
Lane 2, 20-12, 20-13 Minimum recall, 18-20
l'latoon, 16-5, 16-6,16-19, 16-31,16-35, Receiving lanes, 18-8, 18-17, 18-39, 18-74,
16-39, 16-44,17-4,17-31, 17-37, 17-38, 20-8
17-46, 17-74,17-78,17-79,17-82,17-86, Recreational vehicle, 16-14, 17-24, 18-29
18-1,18-8,18-11,18-12, 18-13, 18-48, Red clearance interval, 17-81, 18-19,
18-67,18-75, 18-76, 18-86,19-5,19-17, 18-20, 18-21, 18-39, 18-40, 18-62, 18-64,
19-18, 19-32, 23-3, 23-6, 23-7 18-89, 18-96
Platoon ratio, 16-31,17-78, 17-79,18-8, Reentry delay, 17-16,17-22,17-23, 17-60,
18-11,18-12,18-13,18-48, 18-75, 18-76, 17-62, 17-70,17-95,17-96
18-86 Reference phase, 16-30, 17-77, 18-22,
Potential capacity, 19-5,19-16,19-17, 18-78
19-18,19-19,19-45, 19-46 Regression model, 21-4,21 -5,22-43,23-9,
Precision, 16-25, 17-72, 18-81 23-17
Prepositioning, 18-15, 22-41, 22-70 Residual queue, 16-2, 16-10,16-11,17-2,
Pretimed control, 18-18, 18-28, 18-31, 17-13,18-2,18-23, 18-49,18-58, 18-59,
18-39, 18-42, 18-43, 18-45, 18-75 11P5, 18-93,21-19
Progression, 16-8, 16-31, 17-7, 17-73, Rest-in-walk mode, 18-20, 18-27, 18-30,
17-78, 18-5, 18-6,18-11, 18-12,18-13, '18-97
18-14, 18-59, 18-76,18-77, 18-78, '18-82, Restrictive median, 16-26, 16-27, 17-9,
18-92, '18-106, 21 -27 17-12,17-33,17-68
Protected tum, 22-24, 22-25 Right-tum-on-red, 16-31, 17-75, 18-8,
18-9, 18-25, 18-66, 18-76, 22-15,22-43
Ring, 17-80, 18-4, 18-5, 18-21, 18-42,
Q 18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 18-88
Quality of service, 16-1, 16-3, 16-4, 16-8, Roundabout, 16-13,16-16,16-18, 16-21,
16-9,16-14,17-1,17-3, 17-7, 17-8, 16-26, 17-16, 17-23, 17-24, 17-28,17-39,
17-17, 17-25, 17-51, 18-1, 18-7, 18-29, 17-45, 17-55, 17-61, 17-70, 17-75,21-1,
20-3, 21-1,23-1, 23-5,23-1,23-17 22-1, 22-5, 22-9, 22-34, 22-35
Queue, see Back of queue; lnitial queue; Running speed, 16-1 7,16-22,16-23,
Overflow queue; Queue delay; Queue 17-13,17-14,17-16,17-22,17-32, 17-34,
jump; Queue length; Queue spillback; 17-37,17-51, 17-56,17-57,17-58,17-60,
Queue storage ratio; Residual queue 17-61, 17-62, 17-63, 17-69, 17-70, 17-73,
Queue delay, 18-54, 19-42 17-85,17-88, 17-91,17-92,17-95,18-23
Queue jump, 17-23 Running time, 16-7,16-11,16-13,17-6,
Queue length, 19-5, 19-7, 19-25, 19-26, 17-15, 17-22,17-32,17-34,17-36,17-38,
19-30, 19-39, 19-40, 19-48, 19-49, 20-17, 1.7-42, 17-57, 17-60, 17-62, 17-63, 17-83,
20-26, 21-20, 21 -33, 22-28, 22-33, 22-54, 17-91, 17-95, 17-97
22-60, 22-66 Ru ral, 18-57,20-17,21 -21,22-2
Queue spillback, 16-10, 16-14, 17-13,
17-24, 18-22, 18-28, 18-30, 19-38, 20-20,
22-32
s
Queue storage ratio, 18-3, 18-57, 1H-93, Saturation flow rate, 16-26, 16-27, 16-31,
22-12, 22-15, 22-33, 22-44, 22-53, 22-54, 17-41, 17-73, 17-74, 17-78, 17-79, 17-81,
22-57, 22-58, 22-61, 22-62, 22-63, 22-66, 18-8, 18-14, 18-15, 18-35, 18-36, 18-38,
22-67 18-40, 18-42, 18-46, 18-47, 18-48, 18-71,
18-76, 18-81, 18-83, 18-87, 18-88, 18-90,
18-91, 18-93, 18-102, 19-7, 19-21, 19-38,
R 21-5,22-15,22-16,22-18,22-24,22-25,
Ramp meter, 21-25, 22-1, 22-53, 22-56 22-34, 22-37, 22-38, 22-39, 22-53, 22-55,
Ramp roadway, 22-36, 22-40, 22-43 22-59, 22-64, 22-67, 22-69
Rank, 19-7, 19-8, 19-9, 19-10, 19-11, Saturation headway, 18-24, 20-1, 20-2,
19-12, 19-13, 19-17, 19-18, 19-19, 19-20, 20-3, 20-6, 20-7, 20-8, 20-9, 20-11,
19-21, 19-22, 19-23, 19-24, 19-28, 19-29, 20-14,20-15,20-23,20-25,22-29,22-30,
19-30, 19-45, 19-46, 19-47, 19-48 22-33, 22-55
Traffic analysis tool, 17-72, 18-81, 21-23, Unsignalized intersection, 17-5, 17-40,
22-53 17-44, 19-2, 19-30, 19-41, 19-42, 21-1,
Traffic condition, 16-1, 16-2, 16-13, 16-25, 21-4, 21-7, 21-18, 22-14, 22-36
17-1,17-2,17-24,17-25,17-29,17-71, Urban street segment, 16-5, 17-1, 17-3,
18-1, 18-2, 18-26, 18-28, 18-29, 18-35, 17-6
18-80, 19-36,20-1,21-21, 22-15,22-24
Traffic control device, 17-5, 17-32, 17-34,
17-60,21-2,21 -25
v
Traffic pressure, 22-24, 22-25, 22-59, Validation, 22-73
22-64, 22-65 Variability, 17-39
Transit frequency, 16-32, 17-16,17-18, Volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio, 19-40,
17-64, 17-70, 17-95 20-2, 23-2, 23-7
Transit mode, 16-7, 16-9,16-13,16-30,
16-36, 16-41,. 17-6, 17-8, 17-24
Transit reliability, 17-17
w
Travel mode, 16-1,16-3, 16-4,16-5,16-6, Walk intervat 18-19, 18-20, 18-100
16-8, 16-12, 16-14, 16-16, 16-32, 16-37, Walkway, 16-12,16-36,16-41, 17-16,
16-42, 17-1, 17-3, 17-8, 17-16, 17-24, 17-20, 17-47, 17-71,18-25,18-27, 18-63,
17-27, 18-1, 18-3, 18-7, 18-24, 18-28, 18-80, 18-97, 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5,
I 8-29, I 8-31 23-3, 23-4, 23-6, 23-7, 23-19, 23-20,
Travel speed, see Average t ravel speed 23-23
Travel time, 16-11,16-12,16-13,16-17,
16-20, 16-22,16-23,17-17,17-39,17-61,
17-63,17-64, 17-65,17-66, 17-74,17-97,
17-98, 18-5,18-78, 18-82, 20-8,20-16,
22-2, 22-40, 22-54, 22-69, 23-11
Travel time rate, 17-63, 17-64, 17-65,
17-66, 17-98
Truck, 16-14, 17-24, 18-29, 23-4
Two-lane highway, 23-1
Two-phase pattern, 20-4
Two-stage gap acceptance, 19-5, 19-41,
19-44
Two-way left-tum lane, 17-11,17-19,
18-17, 19-2
Two-way STOP-controlled, 16-13, 16-18,
16-21, 16-26, 17-5, 17-23, 17-24, 17-28,
17-44, 17-55, 17-61, 17-75, 19-1,21-4,
22-1,22-13,22-56
u
Uncontrolled, 16-11,17-5,17-15,17-23,
17-36, 17-39,17-40, 17-49, 17-52, 17-56,
17-84, 18-30, 19-1, 22-43
Uniform delay, 18-46, 18-47, 18-5t
18-52, 18-53, 18-56, 18-82, 18-9t 18-92,
18-93
Unit extension, 18-18
Unmet demand, 18-49, 18-51, 18-52,
JS-53, 18-54, 18-56