Determining the Most Suitable Pedestrian
Level of Service Method for Dhaka City,
Bangladesh, Through a Synthesis
of Measurements
Tanweer Hasan, Ashfia Siddique, M. Hadiuzzaman,
and Sarder Rafee Musabbir
In this paper, five pedestrian level of service (PLOS) methods are out-
lined 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, geo-
metric, 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 percep-
tion 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.
By far, the most important mode of transport is walking. Not only
does this mode create a crucial link for intermodal transfers in
major activity centers, it also facilitates trips made for recreational
and utilitarian purposes (1). Walking is prevalent in any transport
decision, because it is done on each and every trip at the com-
mencement and the termination stages. The importance of walking
creates a great necessity for adequate pedestrian facilities to main-
tain a sustainable link for intermodal transfer. Although pedestrian
service facilities are warranted in urban areas, the focus on them
has been inadequate. Relatively little research analysis is available
T. Hasan, Department of Civil Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589,
Saudi Arabia. A. Siddique, M. Hadiuzzaman, and S. R. Musabbir, Department of Civil
Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka 1000,
Bangladesh. Corresponding author: T. Hasan, tanweer20@gmail.com.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2519, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2015, pp. 104–115.
DOI: 10.3141/2519-12
104
on pedestrian facilities and related factors, compared with the data
available on motorized transportation. Pedestrian level of service
(PLOS) is an overall measure of walking conditions on a route,
path, or facility. This measure links directly to the factors that affect
mobility, comfort, convenience, and safety, which reflect pedes-
trian perceptions of the degree to which a facility is pedestrian
friendly (2). PLOS indicates the qualities of a pedestrian space and
serves as a guide to the development of standards for pedestrian
facilities.
In Bangladesh, most daily trips are made on foot, just as they are
made in many other low-income, developing countries. Although a
recent study indicated that 42% of trips were made on foot in Dhaka
City, Bangladesh, a cursory look at the conditions of pedestrian facili-
ties indicated the degree of distress that pedestrians experienced there
daily (3). Pedestrian facilities have hardly been assessed for the qual-
ity and LOS that they provide (4). A formal approach to determine
PLOS has not been established in Dhaka City. The pedestrian facili-
ties that are available in the city are lacking in service quality, and the
measures adopted to augment them have not kept up with pedestrian
demand. Further, the lack of data on PLOS has encouraged the accep-
tance of deteriorating service levels by the transport authorities. Thus
there is an immediate need to adopt a suitable methodology to assess
pedestrian facilities in Dhaka City.
The objectives of this research were to (a) implement the selected
PLOS methodologies to evaluate the service quality of the sites in
Dhaka City selected for the study (i.e., the objective measurement);
(b) to assess pedestrian perceptions of the service quality of sidewalks
and choices among the various footpath facilities (i.e., the subjective
assessment); and (c), on the basis of (a) and (b), to recommend the
PLOS method best suited to Dhaka City’s circumstances.
Literature Review
Previous Findings and Limitations
Landis et al. articulated for many the observation that the pedestrian
in the roadside environment is subjected to a multitude of factors
that significantly affect feelings of safety, comfort, and convenience
(5). These factors may be classified under three general perfor-
mance measures to describe the roadside pedestrian environment:
(a) sidewalk capacity, (b) the quality of the walking environment,
and (c) the pedestrian’s perception of safety (or comfort).
Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir
The first performance measure (i.e., sidewalk capacity) was devel-
oped in the early 1970s by Fruin (6). His method, formalized in the
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) of 1994 (7), was the only estab-
lished method to quantify sidewalk capacity. Fruin cited studies of
bidirectional pedestrian flow and stated that flows of equal strength
would not have much effect on one another. A strong flow, however,
would slow a weaker, opposing flow somewhat (7). Fruin also noted
that the measured effective widths of sidewalks should be decreased
automatically by 12 to 18 in. on each side to account for the buffer
space required by pedestrians as they tried to avoid sidewalk obstacles.
He indicated that “pedestrian service standards should be based on
the freedom to select normal locomotion speed, the ability to bypass
slow-moving pedestrians, and the relative convenience of cross and
reverse flow movements at various pedestrian traffic concentrations.”
Fruin also indicated that design standards were not universal across all
environments and that his LOS guidelines ultimately were subjective,
although they had their basis in a great deal of observed evidence.
Pushkarev and Zupan’s Urban Space for Pedestrians (8) often is
quoted in the HCM methodology (7). The authors advocated man-
datory minimum standards for pedestrian space on New York City
streets on the basis of proportionate volumes of building floor space
(8). One of the authors’ innovations was a new definition of service
levels. The new scale included the following four: open flow, un-
impeded, impeded, and constrained, which replaced the A to F scale.
Pushkarev and Zupan determined that in New York City pedestrians
often clustered in platoons because of intersection signal control.
They stated that the “average flow rates in excess of 10 people per
foot per minute are generally not found on outdoor walkways and
cannot be handled by signalized intersections.” Their first finding
was that flow rate and speed were closely related. They also found
that people, or vehicles, tended to move at a faster speed if the flow
rate was low. One byproduct of the measurement of flow rate and
speed they put forth was the calculation of space per person. They
also proposed that the true perception of a sidewalk’s quality had its
root in platoon conditions rather than in an overall average condition.
City: Rediscovering the Center was written after an extensive study
of street life in the 1980s in which Whyte and his research team
observed pedestrians in several locations within New York City,
as well as in other cities, over the course of 3 years (9). Whyte was
interested in the design and management of public spaces, how these
spaces were used by pedestrians, and the relationship between the
design and pedestrian behavior. The study also was concerned with
density, which was the main quantitative variable used to determine
whether the design of a street or an open space was adequate to satisfy
pedestrian demand for space.
Weidmann calculated a normally distributed average speed of
1.34 m/s and a standard deviation of 0.26 (19.3%) for pedestrians
as they walked on a street (10). This value decreased for pedestrians
as they walked on stairs and escalators. Weidmann did not conduct
the field work but developed a synthesis from all of the informa-
tion compiled. He measured an average (maximal) body diameter of
0.46 m and a body depth of 0.23 m, which was equal to a rectangular
area of 0.11 m2, although he chose to work with a more conservative
value of 0.15 m2. This value translated into a maximum density of
6.6 persons/m2. At densities above 3.0 persons/m2, physical contact
was inevitable. According to Weidmann, a walking person needed
an extra lateral space of about 0.30 m on each side, plus an extra
longitudinal space, which depended on the speed of movement, and
increased with speed.
According to Mozer, the suitability of roadway segments for
pedestrians had its basis in four primary variables: (a) walkarea width–
105
volume, (b) walk area–outside lane buffer, (c) outside lane traffic
volume, (d) outside lane motor vehicle speed, and three secondary
factors: (a) walkarea penetrations, (b) heavy vehicle volumes, and
(c) intersection waiting time (11). For each primary variable, a stress
level was measured and set on a scale of 1 to 5. The secondary factors
were added as decimals to the primary stress level. The higher the
stress level, the lower the PLOS. The stress levels were added and then
averaged to determine the overall PLOS (A through E). Evaluations
were made midblock on a discrete segment of the facility. Mozer pre-
sented interesting ideas about the calculation of LOS for all transporta-
tion modes (including the bicycle and on foot). The LOS levels were
tailored to each mode, with a stress-level measurement that had its
basis in several transportation facility measurements. He introduced
a measurement called the “Walkarea Width–Volume” for pedestrians,
which was determined through an equation that included measures of
peak-hour pedestrian volumes, a mode split that was not pedestrian
(e.g., wheelchair, bicycle, skate, running,), the usable width of the
walk area, and a travel pattern factor, which represented the one-way
or bidirectional nature of the facility’s pedestrian traffic.
Dixon’s method was developed and implemented through the
Gainesville Mobility Plan, which was used as a congestion man-
agement system plan for the city of Gainesville, Florida (12). The
PLOS performance measures were used to evaluate roadway cor-
ridors with a point system of 1 to 21, which resulted in LOS ratings
from A to F. The point system took into consideration (a) the pedes-
trian facility provided, (b) conflicts, (c) amenities, (d) motor vehicle
LOS, (e) maintenance, and ( f ) transportation demand management
programs or multimodal links to transit. The roadway corridor under
investigation was divided into roadway segments, which were eval-
uated on the basis of the parameters described. The segment scores
were then multiplied with their weight, and the corridor’s score was
calculated as a sum of the adjusted segment scores. PLOS ratings
were then defined with the corridor score.
The HCM 2010 method is widely accepted and used to assess the
capacity of roads and walkways around the world. The PLOS meth-
odology presented in this manual has its basis in the method adopted
in NCHRP Report 616 (13). In response to the HCM initiative, many
studies were conducted in various countries to find the qualitative
effects of walkways. Their approaches include numerous qualitative
assessments that related to the pedestrian’s enjoyment of the walking
experience (e.g., convenience of the walking experience, the percep-
tion of personal security). However, formal approaches that adopted
qualitative and quantitative measures to determine the PLOS of
walkways have not been established and used in Dhaka City. Thus
this present research effort was undertaken to test the HCM 2010
method, along with four others, to determine which one was most
suitable for use to assess PLOS in Dhaka City.
PLOS Methods Considered
Australian Method 2001
The Australian method was developed to create a simple model to
determine how well paths and roads catered to the needs of pedes-
trians (2). A number of path segments were selected in conjunction
with Main Roads WA (Western Australia) for model calibration
and to evaluate the LOS model. These test segments were selected
because they represented a general cross section of paths in vary-
ing environments. The selected paths were Curtis Road in Melville
(1 km) and Hay Street in West Perth, Australia (700 m). The model
106
made it possible to test the LOS of a pedestrian path, as well as to
determine which factors contributed to low and high LOS, which
in turn made it possible to pinpoint aspects of paths that might be
improved to increase the LOS. This method is centered on three
types of factors for PLOS determination, namely, (a) design or
physical factors, (b) location factors, and (c) user factors. About
11 local factors are distributed under these three categories. Given
the assessment of the factors’ influence on the PLOS, an alpha-
betical grading system was developed to ascertain the pedestrian
facility condition. This methodology incorporates an alphabetical
grading scale from A to E, which is related to the LOS score, each
of which reflects a certain condition. The LOS grade scale follows:
(a) LOS A score (132 or higher) ideal condition; (b) LOS B score
(101 to 131) reasonable condition; (c) LOS C score (69 to 100)
basic condition; (d) LOS D score (37 to 68) poor condition; and
(e) LOS E score (36 or lower) unsuitable condition. Gallin delin-
eated a number of simple steps that were prerequisites to the deter-
mination of a PLOS grade and also devised an assessment sheet to
use during the analysis done with this approach (2).
HCM 2010 Method
HCM 2010 is the fifth edition of the manual, which updated HCM
2000 and aimed to enhance engineer and planner competency to
assess traffic and environmental effects. In this manual several new
factors were incorporated to provide a more refined approach to
PLOS than was available in earlier research efforts. The new factors
are (a) outside travel lane width, (b) bicycle lane and shoulder width,
(c) buffer presence (e.g., on-street parking, street trees), (d) sidewalk
presence and width, and (e) volume and speed of motor vehicle
traffic in outside travel lane. The segment PLOS was calculated
according to the following widely used equation (14):
PLOS = 6.048 + Fv + Fs + Fw (1)
vm
Fv = 0.0091
4 N th
2
 S 
Fs = 4  R 
 100 
Fw = − 1.2276 ln (Wv + 0.5W1 + 50 Ppk + Wbuff fb + WaA fsw )
where
Fv = vehicle volume;
Fs = vehicle speed;
Fw = cross-section factor;
vm = midsegment demand flow rate (vehicles per hour);
Nth = number of through lanes in direction of travel;
SR = motorized vehicle running speed (mph);
Wv = effective total width of outside through lane, bike lane,
and shoulder (ft);
W1 = effective total width of bike lane and shoulder (ft);
Ppk = percentage of occupied on-street parking;
Wbuff = buffer width, which is the distance between edge of pave-
ment and sidewalk, (ft);
fb = buffer area coefficient (1 = no barrier; 5.37 = barrier);
fsw = sidewalk presence coefficient (6 − 0.3WaA if WaA = 10 ft.,
otherwise 3); and
WaA = width of sidewalk (ft).
Transportation Research Record 2519
To determine the LOS of the sidewalks, this method provides an
alphabetical grading system from A to E, which relates to the LOS
score achieved through the formula described earlier. The LOS score
scale follows: (a) LOS A score (≤2.00); (b) LOS B score (>2.00
to 2.75); (c) LOS C score (>2.75 to 3.5); (d) LOS D (>3.5 to 4.25);
(e) LOS E score (>4.25 to 5.00); and ( f ) LOS F score (>5.00).
Trip Quality Method
The trip quality method combines urban design architectural princi-
ples with practical safety and capacity considerations to generate nine
specific evaluation measures to analyze pedestrian systems for their
pleasantness, safety, and functionality (15). The nine measures are
(a) enclosure, definition, (b) complexity of path network, (c) build-
ing articulation, (d) complexity of space, (e) transparency, ( f ) buffer,
(g) shade trees, (h) overhangs, awnings, varied roof lines, and
(i) physical components and conditions. Each of these nine mea-
sures is derived from a combination of safety issues, volume and
capacity considerations, and qualitative design factors adapted from
Rapoport (15) and Jacobs (16). A scale of 1 to 5 is sufficient to accu-
rately cover the range of conformance (i.e., 5 = excellent, 4 = good,
3 = average, 2 = poor, and 1 = very poor) (17).
LOS A (4.0 to 5.0) = very pleasant,
LOS B (3.4 to 3.9) = comfortable,
LOS C (2.8 to 3.3) = acceptable,
LOS D (2.2 to 2.7) = uncomfortable,
LOS E (1.6 to 2.1) = unpleasant, and
LOS F (1.0 to 1.5) = very unpleasant.
The nine evaluation measures have their basis in aesthetics,
safety, and ease of movement and are critical to the provision of a
high PLOS as defined. These measures attempt to extend the scope
of most contemporary methodologies used to determine PLOS to
account for aesthetics and safety, in addition to volume and capac-
ity. In a comprehensive mobility study conducted in Winter Park,
Florida, each of the city’s circulation elements—roadways, transit,
bicycles, and pedestrians—were analyzed, along with general policy
issues, for their overall performance and sustainability (17). In the
study’s pedestrian circulation evaluation, neighborhoods and com-
mercial thoroughfares were examined for compliance with the nine
evaluation measures described. Along with public input, these mea-
sures helped identify not only the areas that required improvement
but also the exact enhancements needed at specific locations.
Landis Method
To aid in the design of pedestrian accommodations on roadways,
Landis et al. developed a method to measure PLOS with a basis in
field measurements of pedestrian perceptions of quality of service
(5). LOS was measured qualitatively to characterize operational
conditions within the traffic stream and perceptions of factors such
as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruption,
and the comfort and convenience of the facility type. A research
initiative by the Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee,
placed people in actual traffic and roadway conditions to obtain
real-time feedback (5). In total, 75 people participated through use
of the roadway walking course in Pensacola, Florida, which gener-
ated 1,250 observations. Later, the model was developed through a
stepwise multivariable regression analysis on the basis of the obser-
Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir
vations attained earlier. The participants were asked to evaluate on
a six-point (A to F) scale how safe and comfortable they felt on
each segment as they traveled from one to another. Level A was
considered the most safe or comfortable (or least hazardous). Level F
was considered the least safe or comfortable (or most hazardous).
The purpose of the Landis method is to focus on and identify
those factors within the right-of-way that significantly influence the
pedestrian’s feeling of safety, comfort, or both (5). The collection
of these factors into a mathematical expression, tested for statisti-
cal reliability, provides a measure of the roadway segment’s PLOS.
Only the roadway environment is considered (i.e., intersection con-
ditions are excluded), and the factors that significantly affect pedes-
trians’ sense of safety and comfort contribute to the evaluation of a
roadway segment LOS as outlined in the Landis methodology and
presented in Equation 2:
PLOS = − 1.2021ln (Wol + Wl + f p × %OSP + fb × Wb + fsw × Ws )
 Vol15 
+ 0.253 ln  + 0.0005 SPD 2 + 5.3876 (2)
 L 
where
Wol = width of outside lane (ft);
Wl = width of shoulder or bike lane (ft);
fp = on-street parking effect coefficient (0.20);
%OSP = percentage of segment with on-street parking;
fb = buffer area barrier coefficient (5.37 for trees spaced
20 ft on center);
Wb = buffer width, which is the distance between edge of
pavement and sidewalk (ft);
fsw = sidewalk presence coefficient (6 − 0.3Ws);
Ws = width of sidewalk (ft);
Vol15 = average traffic during 15-min period;
L = total number of through lanes for road or street; and
SPD = average running speed of motor vehicle traffic (mph).
The PLOS model equation was created with a statistical signifi-
cance at the 95% level. The factor “driveway access frequency and
volume” was included in the stepwise regression analyses but was
not found to be statistically significant at that level. An alphabetical
LOS scale was developed as a basis for stratification of the model’s
numerical result into a PLOS class when it was applied to a particu-
lar roadway segment. This stratification was predetermined, because
the responses gained in the study had their basis in the standard
U.S. educational system’s letter grade structure (with the exception
of Grade E). The developed LOS scale follows: (a) LOS A model
score (≤1.5) very pleasant; (b) LOS B model score (>1.5 and ≤2.5)
comfortable; (c) LOS C model score (>2.5 and ≤3.5) acceptable;
(d) LOS D model score (>3.5 and ≤4.5) uncomfortable; (e) LOS E
model score (>4.5 and ≤5.5) unpleasant; and ( f ) LOS F model score
(>5.5) very unpleasant. A brief outline of the model is provided in
this paper. For more in-depth information, see Landis et al. (5).
Tan Dandan Method 2007
In accordance with experience nationwide and abroad, as well as to
reflect the actual traffic conditions on urban roads in China, the Tan
Dandan research team developed an LOS model, including as primary
factors the following: (a) road transect form, (b) pedestrian flow char-
acteristics, (c) vehicle and bicycle flow characteristics, (d) obstruc-
tions, and (e) the frequency of driveway access (18). To create the
107
model, 12 roadway segment sidewalks were surveyed (18). These
roadway segments were studied through a pedestrian LOS question-
naire, a vehicle traffic volume survey, a bicycle traffic volume survey,
a pedestrian traffic volume survey, and a bicycle traffic speed survey.
This model was developed and substantiated with the adop-
tion of stepwise regression analyses with 395 real-time observa-
tions. Numerous variable transformations and combinations of
the factors were tested. The coefficients were statistically signifi-
cant at 95% level. Thus the model (Equation 3) was developed
as follows:
1.43 + 0.006QB − 0.003Q p + 0.056Qv
LOS = − (3)
Wr + 11.24 ( P − 1.17 P 3 )
where
QB = bicycle traffic during a 5-min period,
QP = pedestrian traffic during a 5-min period,
Qv = vehicle traffic during a 5-min period (passenger car unit),
P = driveway access quantity per meter, and
Wr = distance between sidewalk and vehicle lane (m).
The Tan Dandan method uses an alphabetical LOS grading scale
from A to F, in conjunction with the LOS value obtained from detailed
analyses and perception levels experienced by pedestrians. The grad-
ing scale is as follows: A, LOS < 2.0 pleasant; B, 2.0 ≤ LOS < 2.5
reasonable; C, 2.5 ≤ LOS < 3.0 acceptable; D, 3.0 ≤ LOS < 3.5 poor;
E, 3.5 ≤ LOS < 4.0 unpleasant; and F, LOS ≥ 4.0 unsuitable.
Research Methodology
The methodology of this present research involved two components.
The first component was the objective measure, which consisted of
requisite accumulation of traffic and geometric data to determine
the PLOS for each of the methods listed in the literature review.
Adequate information was obtained through the field study of the
five places selected to represent all categories of land use in Dhaka
City to obtain the most suitable PLOS methodology. The study sites
included (a) a marketplace, (b) residential area, (c) educational area,
(d) commercial area, and (e) industrial area. As expected, different
types of land use affected the quality of walking differently. The
number of pedestrians that used walkways also varied with the land
use. To determine the LOS, it was necessary to divide the walk-
ways into a number of segments. In every location, a walkway 500 m
in length was chosen for the study. Each walkway was divided into
five segments, each of which was 100 m in length. Thus 25 segments,
each 2.5 km in length, were surveyed. All five PLOS methods were
analyzed at each of the segments. Thus each segment acquired a PLOS
value on a scale of A to F, in which A was excellent or very pleasant,
B was comfortable, C was acceptable, D was uncomfortable, E was
unpleasant, and F was very poor or very unpleasant.
The second component of the study was a subjective assessment
which consisted of (a) a user perception rating of the service qual-
ity of the pedestrian walkway facility in the study sections; and
(b) a separate choice rating survey of pedestrians asked to identify
the most favored service quality attributes that had a direct impact
on the LOS of the walkways. In the user perception survey, partici-
pants were asked to walk one after another (to avoid any clustering)
and to rate the walkway segments in terms of comfort, safety, and
convenience. Study participants were told to ignore the presence of
other participants as they made their assessments to avoid the bias of
exposure to the opinions or assessments of others. The rationale for
108 Transportation Research Record 2519

conducting the two surveys was that a comparison between the objec-
tive measurement of PLOS and the user perception ratings would help
to identify which of these five methods best reflected local (i.e., Dhaka
City) conditions. The separate choice rating survey was conducted
without reference to any specific location. The purpose of this third
survey was to compare the most favored service quality attributes with
the factors adopted in the different PLOS methodologies.
Data Collection
The geometric, environmental, and traffic data collection in the field
study was subdivided into two categories, namely, quantitative data
collection and qualitative data collection. The quantitative data
accumulation involved the measurement or count of 20 geometric
parameters or factors (Table 1) that affected the PLOS of the desig-

TABLE 1   Geometric, Environmental, and Traffic Data Assemblage

Geometric,
Environmental, Area A Segments Area B Segments Area C Segments
Sl. and Traffic
No. Characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1 Average path 1.92 2 2.28 4.5 2.85 1.83 1.83 2 1.67 1.6 2.55 2.38
width (m)
2 Average Poorly Poorly Excellent Good Poorly Excellent Excellent Excellent Excellent Some Excellent Excellent
surface broken broken with broken with with with with broken with with
quality few few few few few few few
cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks
3 No. of hawkers 7 4 0 12 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
or food
shops
4 No. of elec., 1 1 0 3 3 5 7 3 2 2 1 0
light, or sign
posts
5 No. of trees 0 3 0 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 No. of benches 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
7 No. of other 1 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 5 1 0
objects
8 Crossing op- None None None None None None None None None None None None
portunities
(zebra,
overpass, or
ramp)
9 Support facili- None None None None None None None None None None None None
ties (color
contrast or
tactile)
10 Connectivity 4-leg None None None None 3-leg 3-leg 3-leg 4-leg 3-leg 4-leg None
of roads junction junc- junc- junc- junc- junc- junc-
tion tion tion tion tion tion
11 Shoulder width 0.45 0.305 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.305 0.48 0.48
(m)
12 No. of drive- 5 2 0 4 1 3 5 3 5 1 1 1
ways
13 No. of side 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
roads
14 Pedestrian 507 453 150 441 243 32 23 17 50 21 135 204
volume for
15-min
counting
15 Other user 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
volume on
walkway
16 Lighting 2 heads at 2 heads at 2 heads at 2 heads at 2 heads at 1 head 1 head 1 head 1 head 1 head 2 heads 2 heads
facilities median median median median median beside beside other other other on me- on me-
walk- walk- side of side of side of dian dian
way way road road road
17 Sight distance Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Curve Curve Straight Straight Straight Straight
of path
18 Avg. effective 1 1.72 2.28 3.15 1.66 1.62 1.38 1.98 1.47 1.52 2.46 2.33
path width
(m)
Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir 109

nated study areas. The qualitative perception of the data collection
had its basis in the visual inspection or observation of 12 parameters
that disrupted the PLOS in the study areas. The study areas were
selected on the basis of diverse land use to incorporate location
variation into the study.
A user perception survey was performed to elicit the responses
of users as they walked in the study locations. The perception
rating categories were excellent, good, satisfactory, poor, and very
poor and were ranked from 5 to 1, respectively. The survey was
conducted on several work days between June 24 (Monday) and
August 21 (Wednesday), 2013, from 4 to 6 p.m. Fifty people par-
ticipated in the survey by walking and rating their reactions to each
of the 25 study segments. The ages of the participants ranged from
18 to 53 years, and approximately one-third of them were women.

Area D Segments Area E Segments

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2.36 2.55 2.55 2.74 2.74 2.89 2.89 2.74 2.15 2 2.15 2.74 1.83

Moderate Moderate Moderate Many Many Many Many Some Some Few Excellent Excellent Excellent
cracks cracks cracks cracks cracks broken broken

9 3 8 11 7 10 12 3 0 0 1 0 0

0 1 1 3 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 3 3 10 12 11 8 7 0 7 0 0 10

1 zebra None None None None None None None None None None None None
cross-
ing

None None None None None None None None None None None None None

None None None 4-leg None None None 3-leg 3-leg 4-leg 4-leg 4-leg 4-leg
junc- junc- junc- junc- junc- junc- junc-
tion tion tion tion tion tion tion
0.305 0.559 0.559 0.43 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.43 0.609 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3

1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1

240 279 318 303 273 285 270 243 40 27 27 81 88

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 2 heads 1 head 1 head 1 head 1 head 1 head
on me- on me- on me- on me- on me- on me- on me- on me- adja- adja- adja- adja- adja-
dian dian dian dian dian dian dian dian cent cent cent cent cent

Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight Straight

2.27 2.05 1.58 2.17 2.25 2.15 1.68 2.52 1.8 1.3 1.6 2.74 0.98

(continued on next page)

110 Transportation Research Record 2519

TABLE 1 (continued)   Geometric, Environmental, and Traffic Data Assemblage

Geometric,
Environmental, Area A Segments Area B Segments Area C Segments
Sl. and Traffic
No. Characteristics 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

19 Space Few empty Almost no Large No empty Continuous Continu- Continu- Continu- Continu- Continu- Con- Con-
efficiency space empty Space space wall ous ous ous ous ous tinuous tinuous
in front of space wall wall wall wall wall wall wall
building
20 Building ar- Average Poor Excellent Poor Non- Good Good Good Good Good Average Average
ticulation existent
21 Presence of SAARC None None None None None Arch Arch None None “Raju” None
special fea- fountain bridge bridge monu-
tures near ment
walkway
22 Presence of None Few None Some Few None None None None None None None
overhang existent existent existent
roofs
23 Buffer width 0 0 2.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
(m)
24 Shade from Non- Non- Almost Non- Non- Few ex- Few ex- Few ex- Few ex- Few ex- Fully Fully
trees existent existent fully existent existent istent istent istent istent istent exis- exis-
tent tent
25 Recognition Almost Almost Matched Almost Not Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched
of land use matched matched matched matched
(market
place)
26 Width of 2.44 3.65 3.65 3.65 3.65 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 2.13 4.63 4.63
outside lane
(m)
27 Width of bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
lane
28 Percentage of 0 30 100 90 100 0 0 0 75 50 0 0
segment oc-
cupied with
on-street
parking
29 No. of through 2 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 3
lanes (at
walkway
side)
30 Speed of ve- 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 19 19
hicles (mph)
31 Volume of ve- 351 267 294 351 417 104 87 90 60 89 252 254
hicles on this
part of road
for 15-min
counting
(Total)
a) Car 148 115 101 154 182 21 20 18 13 23 86 84
b) Bus 20 18 19 25 26 0 0 0 0 0 4 3
c) Baby taxi 91 73 75 108 94 9 7 8 3 7 22 35
d) Motor- 92 61 60 64 115 20 15 9 3 11 56 52
cycle
e) Cycle- 0 0 0 0 0 52 45 55 41 47 84 80
rickshaw
f) Bicycle 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0
g) Truck 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
32 Total volume 501, 0 450, 0 465, 0 444, 0 396, 24 40, 69 57, 63 60, 57 36, 56 42, 72 92, 84 100, 90
of vehicles
on other
part of road
(MV, NMV)

Note: Sl. = serial; no. = number; elec. = electric; avg. = average; SAARC = South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation; MV = motorized vehicle;
NMV = nonmotorized vehicle.
Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir 111

Area D Segments Area E Segments

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Con- Con- Con- No empty No empty No empty No empty No empty No empty No empty No No No
tinuous tinuous tinuous space space space space space space space empty empty empty
wall wall wall space space space

Average Average Good Poor Poor Poor Poor Average Poor Poor Poor Poor Poor

None None None Shapla None None None None None None None None None
round-
about

None None None Some Very few Very few None None None None None None None

0 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fully Fully Fully Non- Non- Non- Non- Non- Few Few Few Non- Some
exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis- exis-
tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent tent
Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched Matched

6.1 6.9 6.9 3.65 3.35 3.35 3.35 3.35 2.43 3.05 3.05 2.43 3.65

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10 100 100 90 100 100 100 100 60 100 100 60 90

3 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2

19 19 19 13 13 13 13 13 19 19 19 19 19

258 266 230 489 450 480 364 306 87 106 90 69 60

79 104 75 81 75 76 71 72 25 28 29 16 18
4 4 1 42 36 33 30 25 0 0 0 0 0
42 36 24 36 54 48 50 28 15 21 11 11 10
40 39 32 25 36 38 27 21 16 18 17 19 11

93 82 98 303 249 285 185 160 30 39 33 23 21

0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
108, 122 111, 108 143, 29 201, 318 213, 267 159, 222 149, 291 132, 174 18, 75 26, 57 24, 60 30, 60 33, 45
112 Transportation Research Record 2519

Another survey was directed to pedestrians in general, without
reference to location, to identify the walkway service quality fac-
tors most favored of the 25 that were extracted from the five PLOS
methodologies examined in this study. The participants in this survey
numbered 415 during the months of June, July, and August 2013.
Of the 415 persons, 95 were women and 320 were men. The ages of
the participants ranged from 15 to 63 years. The various reasons they
gave for walking were to get to work, to avoid a traffic jam, to main-
tain their health, for recreation, and to save money. Further details
on this survey can be obtained in Siddique (19).
PLOS Assessment
To reiterate, the five PLOS methods described in this study were
first examined for their assets and their limitations. The methods
were then implemented to consider through integrated objective and
subjective assessments the suitability of any one method for use
in Dhaka City. The objective assessment consisted of a determi­
nation of the PLOS of each of the five locations selected for study
in Dhaka City with the use of the five methodologies described.
The subjective assessment had its basis in a user perception rating
of the quality of service of the pedestrian facilities in the study sec-
tions. A separate survey of pedestrians without reference to specific
locations was conducted to elicit the most favored of the 25 service
quality parameters or attributes extracted from the PLOS method-
ologies. The results accumulated from the five PLOS methods are
outlined (Table 2) for illustrative comparison along with the user
perception ratings.
The variations in the perception ratings with respect to gender and
age are provided in Tables 3 and 4. The ratings were scrutinized for
any potential deviations that might have arisen from age and gender.
The user perception rating categories were excellent, good, satis-
factory, poor, and very poor, which corresponded to the numerical
ratings of 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1, respectively.
Assessment of the perception ratings showed no significant varia-
tions on the basis of gender and age in any location. The responses by
participants were identical with respect to the existing condition of
the walkways. The ratings of participants 26 to 35 years of age were
higher than they were for other age groups in some of the study seg-
ments. Overall, very few excellent and very poor ratings were given
by the participants.
User Perception Ratings
A brief summary of the comparison methodology adopted to dif-
ferentiate between the PLOS methods and user perception ratings
is outlined in this paper. The degree of closeness was measured by
comparing the LOS outputs with the user perception ratings. For the
Australian method, LOS A corresponded to “ideal condition.” This
ideal condition was considered equivalent to the walking condition

TABLE 2   Comparison of PLOS Methods with Perception Ratings by Users

PLOS Grade (Score) by Method

Australian Trip Quality Landis Tan Dandan Perception Rating

Location Segmenta Method HCM 2010 Method Method Method of Users

Market area 1 LOS D (56) LOS D LOS C (2.8) LOS B (2.54) LOS F (7.9) Poor
2 LOS D (39) LOS A LOS D (2.4) LOS B (2.05) LOS F (9.4) Poor
3 LOS C (73) LOS A LOS B (3.5) LOS A (1.03) LOS A (0.4) Good
4 LOS D (58) LOS A LOS B (3.5) LOS B (1.99) LOS F (9.5) Average
5 LOS D (48) LOS C LOS D (2.4) LOS B (1.84) LOS F (9.7) Poor
Total LOS D (56) LOS B LOS D (2.6) LOS B (1.67) LOS D (3.1)
Residential area 6 LOS C (72) LOS B LOS C (3.3) LOS B (2.47) LOS B (2.4) Good
7 LOS C (72) LOS B LOS B (3.5) LOS B (2.43) LOS B (2.2) Good
8 LOS C (72) LOS B LOS B (3.5) LOS B (2.39) LOS B (2.2) Good
9 LOS C (72) LOS A LOS B (3.4) LOS B (1.89) LOS A (1.4) Average
10 LOS D (53) LOS A LOS C (3.1) LOS B (2.16) LOS B (2.2) Average
Total LOS C (72) LOS B LOS B (3.4) LOS B (2.24) LOS B (2.1)
Educational area 11 LOS C (78) LOS B LOS B (3.4) LOS B (2.23) LOS F (4.1) Good
12 LOS C (70) LOS B LOS C (2.9) LOS B (2.26) LOS F (4.0) Good
13 LOS C (69) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (2.08) LOS F (7.2) Good
14 LOS D (56) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.67) LOS F (4.3) Average
15 LOS D (56) LOS A LOS B (3.4) LOS B (1.63) LOS D (3.4) Average
Total LOS D (68) LOS A LOS C (3.1) LOS B (1.95) LOS F (4.4)
Commercial area 16 LOS D (62) LOS C LOS B (3.5) LOS B (1.90) LOS F (10.9) Poor
17 LOS D (46) LOS B LOS D (2.7) LOS B (1.81) LOS F (5.9) Poor
18 LOS D (46) LOS A LOS D (2.6) LOS B (1.82) LOS F (5.7) Poor
19 LOS D (46) LOS A LOS C (2.8) LOS B (1.76) LOS F (6.1) Poor
20 LOS D (68) LOS A LOS B (3.5) LOS B (1.74) LOS F (7.5) Poor
Total LOS D (62) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.79) LOS F (6.8)
Industrial area 21 LOS D (65) LOS A LOS C (2.8) LOS B (2.06) LOS A (0.0) Poor
22 LOS D (57) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.86) LOS A (1.7) Very poor
23 LOS C (71) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.84) LOS A (1.4) Good
24 LOS C (71) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.94) LOS A (0.4) Good
25 LOS D (67) LOS B LOS C (2.9) LOS B (1.78) LOS A (1.8) Poor
Total LOS C (71) LOS A LOS C (3.0) LOS B (1.85) LOS A (0.8)
a 
Length of segments at each location: 0–100 m, 100–200 m, 200–300 m, 300–400 m, 400–500 m.
Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir 113

TABLE 3   Variation in User Perception Rating with Respect to Gender

User Perception Rating by Segmenta

Location Number of Full

(segment number) Gender Subjects 0–100 m 100–200 m 200–300 m 300–400 m 400–500 m Length

1−5 Total 50 2 2 4 3 2 2
Female 18 2 2 4 3 3 3
Male 32 1 2 4 3 2 2
6−10 Total 50 4 4 4 3 3 4
Female 18 4 4 4 4 3 4
Male 32 4 4 4 3 3 4
11−15 Total 50 4 4 4 3 3 4
Female 18 4 5 4 4 4 4
Male 32 4 4 4 3 3 4
16−20 Total 50 2 2 2 2 2 2
Female 18 2 2 2 2 2 2
Male 32 1 2 2 2 2 2
21−25 Total 50 2 1 4 4 2 3
Female 18 2 1 4 4 2 3
Male 32 3 1 4 4 3 3
a 
Scale of 1 to 5.

rated as excellent by the participants. Similarly, LOS B through
LOS E were considered equivalent to the ratings of good, aver-
age, poor, and very poor, respectively. Thus PLOS A through E in
the Australian method matched the five ratings used by the survey
participants. For the other four methods, LOS D and LOS E cor-
responded to the user rating of poor. For the remaining LOS grades
(A, B, C, F), the correspondence was the same as it was between
the Australian method and the user ratings. A score between 1 and 0
was assigned, depending on the degree of closeness (match). For
example, if for a particular study section the LOS determined with
the HCM 2010 method turned out to be A and the participant rating
also was excellent, then a score of 1 was assigned (complete match).
If the participant rating was good, as opposed to the A used in the
HCM method, a score of 0.5 was assigned. Deviation of two or more
degrees (e.g., A versus average, or B versus poor) was assigned a
score of 0. Each of the 25 study segments was rated with this procedure,
and the results are presented in Table 5.
It was evident from the results that, with a score of 18, the Aus-
tralian method was more effective than the other four methods in
the determination of PLOS. The trip quality method achieved the
second best score of 16 points. The HCM, Landis, and Tan Dandan
methods achieved scores that ranged between seven and 12. Thus

TABLE 4   Variation in User Perception Rating with Respect to Age

User Perception Rating by Segment

Location Number of Full

(segment number) Age (years) Subjects 0–100 m 100–200 m 200–300 m 300–400 m 400–500 m Length

1−5 16–25 21 2 2 4 3 2 2
26–35 08 2 2 5 3 3 3
36–45 14 2 2 4 3 2 2
46–55 07 1 2 4 2 2 2
6−10 16–25 21 4 4 4 3 3 4
26–35 08 4 4 4 3 3 4
36–45 14 4 4 4 4 3 4
46–55 07 4 4 4 3 3 3
11−15 16–25 21 4 4 4 3 3 4
26–35 08 4 4 4 3 4 4
36–45 14 4 5 4 3 3 4
46–55 07 4 4 4 3 3 4
16−20 16–25 21 2 2 2 2 2 2
26–35 08 2 2 2 2 2 2
36–45 14 2 2 2 2 2 2
46–55 07 2 2 2 2 3 2
21−25 16–25 21 2 1 4 4 3 3
26–35 08 3 1 4 4 2 4
36–45 14 2 1 3 4 3 3
46–55 07 2 1 4 4 2 3
 114 Transportation Research Record 2519

TABLE 5   Comparison of PLOS Methods on Basis (e) the presence of a buffer, ( f ) the mix of path users, (g) the secu-
of Subject Ratings rity of the walkway, and (h) the presence of shade trees. Most of
these eight factors were extracted from the Australian method.
Score Representation of
Pedestrian LOS (out of 25) Local Conditions (%) The analysis highlighted the number of popular service quality
attributes that a particular PLOS method included. The Australian
Australian method 18 72 method contained seven of the eight attributes that the survey par-
HCM 2010 7.5 30 ticipants found most desirable (popular) and convenient. The trip
Trip quality method 16 64 quality and HCM 2010 methods incorporated three of the desired
Landis method 11 44 attributes, followed by the Landis method, which contained two of
Tan Dandan method 9.5 38 the attributes. The Tan Dandan method performed poorly with only
one popular attribute.

ConclusionS and RecommendationS

they were deemed ineligible to determine the PLOS of pedestrian
facilities in Dhaka City.
Pedestrian Choices in Separate Survey
To facilitate the adoption of the most suitable PLOS procedure for
Dhaka City, a separate questionnaire survey was conducted among
pedestrians. They were asked to select from a list of 25 factors the
12 they believed to have the greatest potential to affect the quality of
service of pedestrian facilities. The analysis of the responses assem-
bled in Figure 1 shows that only eight of the 25 factors were selected
by most (more than 50%) of the surveyed pedestrians. The eight
factors chosen referred to (a) the width of the walkway, (b) surface
condition, (c) the presence of obstructions, (d) crossing facilities,
In this paper, five PLOS methods are presented in brief with respect
to their assets and their limitations: (a) the Australian method, (b)
the HCM 2010 method, (c) the trip quality method, (d) the Lan-
dis method, and (e) the Tan Dandan method. These methods were
implemented to consider their suitability for use in Dhaka City,
through integrated objective and subjective assessments. The objec-
tive assessment consisted of the determination of the PLOS of five
study locations in Dhaka City and the adoption of accumulated field
data on traffic, geometric, and environmental factors. The subjec-
tive assessment incorporated user perception ratings of the service
quality of the pedestrian facilities of the selected study areas by 50
individuals. A separate survey of 415 individuals was conducted to
elicit the most favored of the 25 service quality attributes extracted
from the five PLOS methods used in this study.

Traffic volume 30
Speed of vehicles 41
Presence of parked vehicle 49
Presence of shoulder lane 20
Outside lane width 22
Number of road lanes 24
Land use recognition 42
Presence of important features 36
Shade from trees 74
Service Quality Attributes

Overhang roof or porches 41

Curve portion of walkway 48
Views of buildings 43
Space before buildings 22
Bicycle volume 17
Security 72
Other users 83
Pedestrian volume 33
Presence of intersection or driveway 49
Buffer 58
Connections of roads 45
Support facilities 38
Crossing facilities 70
Obstructions 72
Surface condition 84
Path width 85

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Pedestrians’ Choice (%)

FIGURE 1   Pedestrian choice percentages of various service quality attributes.

Hasan, Siddique, Hadiuzzaman, and Musabbir
Twenty-five walkway segments, each 100 m in length, and located
in different areas of Dhaka City were examined to make a compara-
tive assessment. The perception assessment made use of a rating
scale of excellent, good, average, poor, and very poor. The partici-
pants provided their ratings after they walked through all 25 of the
pedestrian walkways used in the study. To aid in the selection of
the most suitable PLOS for Dhaka City, the subjective ratings were
compared with the objective measurements of PLOS provided by the
five study area pedestrian walkways. On the basis of the assessment
of perception ratings, the Australian method scored 18 points (72%
representation of local conditions) out of a maximum of 25 points.
The trip quality method had the second best score of 16 points
(64%), followed by the Landis method with 11 points (44%). The
Tan Dandan method received 9 points (36%), and the HCM 2010
method scored 7.5 points (30%). A comparison of the accumulated
information revealed that the Australian method was best suited to
determine the service quality of Dhaka City walkways.
Information accumulated from the separate survey indicated that
most pedestrians (i.e., more than 50%) believed the following eight
factors had a direct and influential impact on the PLOS of walkways:
(a) path width, (b) surface condition, (c) obstruction on walkway,
(d) presence of designated roadway crossing facilities, (e) buffer
zone between walkway and traffic lane, ( f ) presence of bicycle or
motorcycle over walkway, (g) walkway security (e.g., lighting),
and (h) queues and shade trees along the walkway. The Australian
method included seven of these eight factors, while the Trip Quality
method included three. The HCM 2010 and Landis methods included
two of the attributes each. The Tan Dandan method contained only
one popular attribute.
In Dhaka City, the main mode of transport is walking. A cursory
look at the condition of the pedestrian walkways there revealed the
distress that pedestrians experienced daily. It is well known that ser-
vice quality conditions do not meet the expectations of pedestrians.
In the absence of a suitable PLOS procedure, however, the service
quality of the pedestrian walkways cannot be quantified. Thus it
is suggested that the Australian method be adopted as an interim
PLOS procedure for Dhaka City until a new PLOS procedure for
pedestrian facilities is developed.
This study was not envisioned as one that would develop a
new PLOS method to assess pedestrian facilities in Dhaka City.
The study was limited to the identification of a PLOS method that
could adequately ascertain the service quality of Dhaka City pedes-
trian walkways in the interim. Thus future research should aim to
develop a new PLOS method tailored to Dhaka City pedestrian
walkways to minimize the approximations, assumptions, and errors
associated with the lack of an adequate procedure. The findings of
this study provide guidelines that could be useful at the inception
of more in-depth research on two of the suitable methods, namely,
the Australian method and the trip quality method. Moreover, the
factors that should be considered in the development of a new PLOS
method were identified in this present study, which will facilitate
future studies.
115
References
  1. Sarkar, S. Determination of Service Levels for Pedestrians, with Euro-
pean Examples. In Transportation Research Record 1405, TRB, National
Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 35–42.
  2. Gallin, N. Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness—Guidelines for Assessing
Pedestrian Level of Service. Proc., Australia: Walking the 21st Century,
Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 2001, pp. 119–128.
  3. Rahaman, K. R., T. K. Dhar, M. S. F. Hossain, and S. Khan. A Comprehen-
sive Approach to Model Pedestrians Safety in Dhaka City, Bangladesh.
European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2009, pp. 197–204.
  4. Sisiopiku, V. P., J. E. Byrd, and A. 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 Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 117–124.
  5. Landis, B. W., V. R. Vattikuti, R. M. Ottenberg, D. S. McLeod, and M.
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.
 6. Fruin, J. Pedestrian Planning and Design. Metropolitan Association of
Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, Inc., New York, 1971.
 7. Special Report 209: Highway Capacity Manual, 3rd ed. (1997 update).
TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998.
  8. Pushkarev, B., and J. Zupan. Urban Space for Pedestrians. MIT Press,
Cambridge, Mass., 1975.
 9. Whyte, W. H. City: Rediscovering the Center. Doubleday, New York,
1988.
10. Weidmann, U. Transport Techniques for Pedestrians. ETH Zurich, IVT
Berichte 90, Zurich, Switzerland, 1993.
11. Mozer, D. 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 Mea-
sures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems. In Trans-
portation Research Record 1538, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1996, pp. 1–9.
13. Dowling, R., D. B. Reinke, A. Flannery, P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, T. A.
Petritsch, B. W. Landis, N. M. Rouphail, and J. A. Bonneson. 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 Transpor-
tation, 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, A. History and Precedent in Environmental Design. Plenum,
New York, 1990.
16. Jacobs, A. B. Great Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
17. Jaskiewicz, F. 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, T., W. Wei, L. Jain, and B. Yang. Research on Methods of Assess-
ing Pedestrian Level of Service for Sidewalk. Journal of Transportation
Systems Engineering and Information Technology, Vol. 7, No. 5, 2007,
pp. 74–79.
19. Siddique, A. Determination of a Suitable Level of Service Method to Mea-
sure Service Quality of Pedestrian Walkways in Dhaka City. MS thesis.
Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, 2014.
The Standing Committee on Pedestrians peer-reviewed this paper.