Development of Pedestrian Delay

Model at Signalized Intersections

Development of pedestrian delay model at signal intersection
Hyun-ho Chang 1

Byoung-jo Yoon 2 *
1
Jang Hyun-ho

2*
Byungjo Yoon
1
Seoul National University
2
Incheon National University
1
Seoul National University BK Assistant Professor, Ph.D.
2
Professor of Urban Engineering, College of Urban Sciences, Incheon National University, Ph.D.
* Corresponding author. *Corresponding Author.

ABSTRACT

An accurate pedestrian delay model is a key factor in the evaluation of

pedestrian-centered signal intersections. Pedestrian crossing behavior during
green time in signaled pedestrian crossings is very diverse, and pedestrian
arrival behavior consists of random arrival and pedestrian groups. Therefore,
in order to calculate the accurate pedestrian delay, the crossing and arrival
behavior of pedestrians should be considered. Despite this need, the Road
Capacity Manual (HCM) recommends a simplified pedestrian delay model that
does not reflect pedestrian arrival and crossing behavior. For this reason, in
order to make decisions on the design and operation of pedestrian-oriented
signal intersections, a pedestrian delay model suitable for various signalized
single crosswalks and signal intersections is required. In this study, a new
pedestrian retardation model is proposed based on pedestrian arrival and
crossing behavior. The proposed model consists of a signalized single
crosswalk pedestrian delay model and a signal intersection pedestrian delay
model. A single crosswalk delay model was developed based on pedestrian
crossing behavior during pedestrian green time. The signal intersection delay
model was developed based on pedestrian crossing and pedestrian group
arrival behavior. As a result of evaluation through numerical simulation, the
proposed delay model can effectively solve the over/underestimation problem
of the HCM model because it considers various pedestrian crossings and
arrival behaviors.
keyword
signal intersection
pedestrian

lag model

walking group

Arrival and crossing behavior

An accurate pedestrian-delay model is essential for the pedestrian-oriented

evaluation of signalized intersection (SI). The crossing behaviors of
pedestrians at signalized pedestrian crosswalks (SPCs) are various, and their
arrival behaviors consist of two types, random and platoon. It is natural,
hence, that the behaviors of pedestrian crossing and arrival should be
considered in order to estimate accurate pedestrian delay. Despite this
necessity, a simple pedestrian-delay model that cannot explain these
behaviors of pedestrian movements is still recommended in Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM). For these reasons, a pedestrian-delay model, suitable for
various SPCs and SIs, is required to make pedestrian-oriented decisions on
the design and operation of various SPCs and SIs. This paper proposes a
novel pedestrian-delay model that is based on the behaviors of pedestrian
crossing and arrival. The proposed model consists of two sub models: the one
for SPC and the other for SI. The SPC delay model was developed based on
the behaviors of pedestrian crossing during pedestrian green time. The SI
delay model was designed based on the behaviors of pedestrian crossing and
platoon arrival. The results of a numerical simulation showed that the
proposed delay model can successfully overcome the under- and
overestimation problems of the HCM model with explaining various behaviors
of pedestrian crossing and arrival. The SPC delay model was developed
based on the behaviors of pedestrian crossing during pedestrian green
time. The SI delay model was designed based on the behaviors of pedestrian
crossing and platoon arrival. The results of a numerical simulation showed
that the proposed delay model can successfully overcome the under- and
overestimation problems of the HCM model with explaining various behaviors
of pedestrian crossing and arrival. The SPC delay model was developed
based on the behaviors of pedestrian crossing during pedestrian green
time. The SI delay model was designed based on the behaviors of pedestrian
crossing and platoon arrival. The results of a numerical simulation showed
that the proposed delay model can successfully overcome the under- and
overestimation problems of the HCM model with explaining various behaviors
of pedestrian crossing and arrival.
Keywords
Signaled intersection

Pedestrian

Delay model
 Pedestrian platoon

Arrival and crossing behavior

MAIN

1. Background and purpose of the study


2. Existing research and problems


2.1 Existing research


2.2 Limitations of Existing Studies

 3. Development of pedestrian retardation model


3.1 Development direction of the model


3.2 Single crosswalk delay model development


3.3 Intersection Delay Model Development


4. Evaluation of the development model


4.1 Evaluation Results of Single Crosswalk Delay Model


4.2 Evaluation result of delay model at signal intersection


5. Conclusion and future research

1. Background and purpose of the study

The paradigm of road transportation is changing from vehicle-centered to
human-centered. One of these paradigm shifts is a change from the existing
vehicle-centered traffic signal operation to a pedestrian-centered signal
operation. Pedestrian priority zones, pedestrian coexistence, school zones,
silver zones, and high-density central business districts centered on
pedestrians are examples of pedestrian-oriented signal operation. The current
highway capacity manual (HCM) uses vehicle delay as a key performance
evaluation indicator for signalized intersection (SI) operation, and does not
consider pedestrian delay. However, the main traffic subjects at signal
intersections are vehicles and pedestrians. Therefore, in order to operate a
pedestrian-oriented signal intersection, the delay of pedestrians should be
considered along with vehicle delays.

USHCM (2000, 2010, 2016) and KHCM (2013) present a vehicle retardation
model and a pedestrian retardation model separately. The vehicle delay
model has been developed and used to suit various traffic conditions, road
conditions, and signal operating conditions. On the other hand, the pedestrian
retardation model is presented briefly. In the isolated pedestrian crosswalk
(IPC) and the pedestrian crosswalk of signalized intersection (SPC),
pedestrian arrival and crossing behavior are different. In the case of IPC, with
the random arrival of pedestrians, the pedestrian crossing behavior during
green time varies, and the crossing behavior is closely related to the road
width. In the case of SPC, the arrival behavior of pedestrians is divided into
the arrival behavior of IPC and the pedestrian group (pedestrian platoon), and
the crossing behavior is closely related to the arrival behavior. Therefore, the
pedestrian retardation model should be divided into IPC and SPC. However,
the HCM pedestrian delay model has a limitation in that it cannot consider the
pedestrian arrival and crossing characteristics described above. For example,
in the case of the HCM pedestrian delay model, if the ratio of pedestrian green
time to cycle time length is the same, then the pedestrian's delay is the
same. In other words, it can be said that the current HCM pedestrian
retardation model is not suitable for the design/operation/evaluation of
pedestrian-oriented IPC and SPC.

To overcome the above limitations, this study proposes a new pedestrian

retardation model based on pedestrian arrival and crossing behavior. The
proposed pedestrian retardation model is divided into IPC and SPC. As a
result of evaluation of the developed model through numerical simulation, it
was shown that the developed pedestrian delay model can reliably evaluate
pedestrian delay in various conditions of pedestrian arrival and crossing
behavior. And it was found to effectively solve the over/underestimation
problem of the HCM model.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Chapter 2 examines the current

pedestrian retardation model and then draws out the problems. Chapter 3
establishes the development direction of the model considering IPC and SPC,
and then presents a pedestrian retardation model that considers pedestrian
behavior in IPC and SPC. The evaluation and applicability of the development
model are dealt with in Chapter 4, and Chapter 5 consists of the conclusion of
this study and future research.

2. Existing research and problems

The goal of this study is to develop a model that more accurately calculates
pedestrian delays at signal intersections through the static analysis process of
HCM. Therefore, the review of existing studies has targeted the static macro
model, and the limitations of the existing model considered are to be drawn.

2.1 Existing research

There are no domestic studies on the development of pedestrian delay
models at signal intersections, and some studies have been reported
abroad. The widely used pedestrian retardation model is the USHCM (2000,
2010, 2016) model, which is Eq. As in (1), it is composed of , and
KHCM (2013) applies it in the same way. The USHCM model was presented
by Braun and Roddin (1978), and it was modeled based on the cumulative
wait assuming that the pedestrian arrival rate is uniform arrival. The structure
of the model has the disadvantage of evaluating the delay higher than the
actual delay because it does not take into account pedestrians who do not
comply with the signal after additional arrival after the effective green time.

(One)

where : mean pedestrian delay (sec/person), : pedestrian effective green

time length (sec), and : signal cycle length (sec).

The Braun and Roddin model was developed by Pretty (1979) and Rouphail et
al. (1998). Eq. considering pedestrians who do not obey pedestrian
signals. The same model as (2) was presented. However, there is a limit in not
being able to explain pedestrian delays at a more sophisticated level as the
crossing patterns of pedestrians additionally arriving after the effective green
time vary depending on the length of the pedestrian green signal and the
width of the road.

(2)

Here, is the proportion of pedestrians arriving during the red light.

Virkler (1998) found that a large part of the retardation reduction was due to
pedestrians entering the crosswalk during the clearance phase, and Eq. The
same model as (3) was presented. However, it did not solve the problem of
overestimation of the existing pedestrian retardation model.

(3)

Li et al. (2005) show Figs. As shown in 1 and 2, the USHCM model and Virkler
model overestimate pedestrian delay, and presented a pedestrian delay
model that considers jaywalking pedestrians in an environment with a low
traffic law compliance rate.

Fig. One.
Estimability of USHCM Model (Li et al., 2005)

Fig. 2.
Estimability of Virkler Model (Li et al., 2005)

2.2 Limitations of Existing Studies

As a result of the review of previous studies, the existing delay model was
developed under the condition of uniform arrival, which has the following two
implications. First, in the case of an isolated pedestrian crosswalk (IPC), the
uniform arrival condition is considered reasonable because the purpose of the
model is to perform static analysis (in this study, IPC is installed in the middle
of an intersection or It means a crosswalk installed independently from an
intersection). However, it is not appropriate to consider the additional crossing
of actual pedestrians to set the condition of uniform arrival for pedestrians who
additionally arrive and cross during effective green time, that is, during
extinction after the initial entry time. This is because the additional crosswalks
vary according to the difference in crossing ability according to the walking
speed of various pedestrian classes, the width of the crosswalk and the length
of the clearing. Therefore, the composition ratio of pedestrians performing
traversing among pedestrians additionally arriving during extinction under
uniform conditions is not uniform. Existing models do not take these additional
cross-sections into account, which overestimates the delay.
Second, in the case of a pedestrian crosswalk of signalized intersection
(SPC), the arrival behavior of pedestrian demand can be divided into uniform
arrival and arrival of pedestrians arriving from adjacent crosswalks (in this
study, pedestrian groups are It is a pedestrian group formed by the control of
signals and refers to the amount of pedestrian traffic arriving at the crosswalk
as a group). The distance (m) between crosswalks installed at signal
intersections is generally short, and when Doryu Island is used, the distance
between crosswalks is close to zero. Therefore, if the delay of the pedestrian
group that started at the previous crosswalk is calculated under the condition
of uniform arrival, the delay will be overestimated/underestimated. Fig. 3
shows the difference in total delay according to arrival behavior (uniform
arrival and arrival of pedestrians). Uniform arrival is greater than that of
the walking group , so the uniform arrival condition overestimates the
delay, and when the walking group arrives at the beginning of the red time,
underestimation occurs. This over/underestimation problem increases as the
amount of pedestrian traffic that crosses with a type B (or type A) increases.

Fig. 3.
Total-Delay Difference between Arrival Types

The over/underestimation problem of the existing pedestrian model is judged

to be due to the above two limitations. Therefore, the pedestrian retardation
model should be divided into the IPC retardation model and the SPC
retardation model. And it is judged that the delay model should consider the
arrival behavior of the pedestrian group and additional pedestrian crossing
during the disappearance.
Development of pedestrian retardation model
3.1 Development direction of the model
As mentioned in the limitations of previous studies, pedestrian delay is
affected by whether additional pedestrians cross and arrive during
extinction. And the arrival form of the crosswalk at the signal intersection is
divided into uniform arrival and pedestrian group arrival. Therefore, the
pedestrian delay model proposed in this study was developed by dividing the
signaled single crosswalk (IPC) and the signal intersection crosswalk (SPC).

The IPC retardation model was developed to consider the crossing behavior
of additionally arriving pedestrians during extinction. The crossing behavior of
additionally arriving pedestrians during extinction is a major modeling
consideration because it appears differently depending on the width of the
crosswalk, that is, the width of the road and the class of pedestrians using the
crosswalk. For example, the additional crossing behavior of the pedestrian
class will not be the same in general street networks, school zones, silver
zones, transit centers, and pedestrian-oriented high-density CBD. The IPC
retardation model developed with the above considerations in mind can
perform differentiated retardation evaluation according to the location where
the IPC is installed and the class of pedestrians using it.

A characteristic of the pedestrian traffic flow at signal intersections is the

formation of pedestrian groups by interception of signals. Therefore, the SPC
retardation model was developed based on the uniform arrival and arrival
patterns of the walking group. Depending on the signal operation method and
geometry of the signal intersection, pedestrian groups show various arrival
patterns. For example, when the light direction of the simultaneous signal is
clockwise, the pedestrian group moving in the clockwise direction arrives
before the pedestrian green light, but the pedestrian group moving in the
counterclockwise direction arrives after the pedestrian red light. As such, the
relationship between the arrival pattern of pedestrian groups and pedestrian
delay is inevitable, so the arrival patterns of various pedestrian groups were
explained based on the time when the pedestrian group formed at the
upstream crosswalk arrived at the crosswalk to be analyzed. Considering the
above, the developed SPC delay model calculates differentiated pedestrian
delay values according to the arrival characteristics of the walking group even
in the case of the same cycle time length and the same pedestrian effective
green time length. Therefore, pedestrian-oriented delay analysis is possible
for various signal operation and intersection geometry.

3.2 Single crosswalk delay model development

To develop a signalized single crosswalk delay model, the model was
developed after setting the crossing behavior of pedestrians arriving during
the pedestrian green display.

3.2.1 Pedestrian crossing behavior setting

Pedestrian crossing is shown in Fig. 4 appears in various ways. ①
Pedestrians Pedestrians who arrive before the green light turns on will enter at
the pedestrian saturation traffic flow rate during the effective green time (initial
entry time in Korea). ②Pedestrians who arrive for a certain period of time
after the valid green time crosses following the preceding pedestrian crossing
after entering. ③ After a certain amount of time has elapsed, pedestrians who
arrive in the dilemma time period enter the crosswalk after deciding whether to
cross in consideration of their (maximum) walking ability during the remaining
erasing time.

Fig. 4.
Behaviors of Pedestrian Crossing at IPC

The existing model is shown in Fig. A model of the shape was

developed based on the uniform arrival rate as shown in Fig. 5, and
whether additional pedestrians crossing during Eq. It is not taken into account
as in (1) or Eq. As in (3), is extended. And there is a disadvantage that the
length of is not clear. The actual length of each pedestrian crossing is
judged to depend on the pedestrian's (maximum) crossing speed capability
and the length of the crosswalk, and it is not easy to calculate and apply the
model (AW: Arrival-waiting in Figs. 5 and 6) (arrival and waiting, QC: queue
clearance, and AD: arrival and departure).
Fig. 5.
Definition of Simple Pedestrian States

Fig. 6.
Definition of Extended Pedestrian States

Pedestrian display in Korea is operated as an initial entry display ( ) and a

disappearance display by green flashing ( ). In this study, Fig. In order
to more realistically consider the pedestrian crossing in Fig. 6, and separated
by and . is the sum of (initial entry time) and (extended
entry time). And whether or not pedestrians arrive during the time to cross
is determined by the pedestrian's judgment during (entry dilemma time).
The crossing ratio of pedestrians arriving during time is higher as it is closer to
the valid green period, and lower as it is closer to the red time. It is also
reasonable for pedestrians arriving after the time zone to abandon the
crossing.

3.2.2 Single road pedestrian retardation model

The single road pedestrian delay model was developed based on the
traditional in-out queue model. The average arrival rate ( , person/sec) of
the pedestrian traffic volume ( , person/hour) is , and the FIFO rule is
not considered because pedestrians tend to wait at their preferred
location. And the pedestrian traffic flow rate at saturation reaches 5,000
(person/hour) (USHCM, 2000), and the cumulative line of saturation traffic
flow rate is considered vertical as it is close to vertical.
Fig. 7 shows the relationship between waiting status and cumulative waiting
pedestrians according to the arrival of pedestrians. Waiting pedestrians occur
at the entry dilemma time ( , ) and the effective red time (
, ). The waiting rate for the arrival rate of pedestrians
arriving at the time ( ) of the time zone is , and the waiting
rate for pedestrians arriving at the time zone is . Therefore, the time zone
and area (of the accumulated air during the pedestrian ) is the total
pedestrian waiting time for one cycle. Therefore, the total pedestrian waiting
time ( ) is Eq. Same as (4).

Fig. 7.
Pedestrian States and Total Delays at IPC

(4)

The total waiting time of pedestrians arriving and waiting during the time
is , and if set as Eq. It is calculated as in (5).

(5)

to Eq. Substituting into (5), the total waiting time ( )

of pedestrians arriving during the time and experiencing waiting is Eq. Same
as (6).

(6)
 The total waiting time of pedestrians arriving and waiting during the time
is , Eq. It is calculated as in (7).

(7)

Total pedestrian waiting time ( ) is Eqs. As the sum of (6) and (7), the
following Eq. Same as (8).

(8)

Eq. (8) is the total pedestrian waiting time per cycle. Therefore, the average
pedestrian delay ( , sec/person) is equal to Eq. (8) is divided by the
walking demand (person/cycle ) for one cycle , and the effective red
time is substituted for Eq. Same as (9). Eq. Putting in (9) as ,
the average pedestrian lag is Eq. It is the same as the HCM model of (1).

(9)

3.3 Intersection Delay Model Development

Demand for pedestrian crossings at signal intersections consists of the
demand for uniform arrival at the access road and the demand for pedestrian
groups arriving from adjacent crosswalks. Therefore, the pedestrian delay
model for crosswalks at signal intersections should account for the delay
caused by uniform arrival and the delay caused by the arrival of pedestrian
groups. The delay due to uniform arrival can be calculated using the single
crosswalk pedestrian delay model presented in this study. However, the delay
due to the arrival of the pedestrian group depends on the arrival rate and time
length of the pedestrian group, the movement time of the pedestrian group
from the previous crosswalk waiting area to the corresponding crosswalk
waiting space, and the arrival time of the pedestrian group at the crosswalk
(based on the red light). appear in various ways. Therefore, the pedestrian
delay model at the signal intersection is: ① Calculation of the arrival rate (
,person/sec) and temporal length ( , sec) of the arriving pedestrian group ; ②
Calculate the travel time required for the pedestrian group from the previous
crosswalk waiting space to the corresponding crosswalk waiting space ( ,
sec), and ③ Pedestrian delay model according to the arrival time of the
pedestrian group, that is, the arrival type for the signal display of the relevant
crosswalk.

3.3.1 Pedestrian group formation and arrival time calculation

The form of the arriving pedestrian group is determined by the arrival rate (
, persons /sec) and the temporal length ( , sec) at the crossing end point of
the previous crosswalk, and the turn ratio of the approach and the
corresponding crosswalk after crossing the previous crosswalk, Fig. Same as
8. The demand ( , occupants/cycle) of the walking group entering
during the period is calculated by the arrival rate ( , occupants /sec) and the
length of the signal cycle (sec) in Eq. It is calculated as (10). The time ( , sec)
at which the head of the walking group finishes crossing is the length of the
crosswalk ( , m) and the crossing speed ( , m/s), Eq. It is calculated as in
(11). And since the pedestrians who entered the crosswalk at the end of ,
arrive at the end of the walking green time , the temporal length ( ,
seconds) of the pedestrian group is Eq. (12) is calculated.

Fig. 8.
Formation of Pedestrian Platoon at SPC

(10)

(11)

(12)

At the end of crossing, the amount of walking (person/ ) of the walking group
is equal to the amount of walking (person/C) reached during one cycle (in the
case of pedestrians, delay due to oversaturation does not occur). Therefore,
the average arrival rate ( , people/sec) of the pedestrian group arriving at the
downstream crosswalk is , , C, and the composition ratio ( , , %) using
Eq. It is calculated as (13).

(13)
The travel time ( , seconds) of the pedestrian group from the crosswalk (j) to
the downstream crosswalk (i) is the length of the crosswalk (j) ( , m), and the
distance between the waiting spaces for the crosswalk through the sidewalk
(or island crosswalk) ( , m), transverse velocity ( , m / s), transverse
movement walking speed (between the press , using Eq m / s). It is
determined as in (14).

(14)

3.3.2 Pedestrian group arrival mode

Depending on the time when the walking group formed at the crosswalk (j)
arrives at the crosswalk (i), the delay of the walking group changes
significantly. Therefore, after defining the arrival pattern of the walking group,
the delay model of the walking group is presented according to the defined
arrival pattern of the walking group. The arrival form of the pedestrian group
is defined using the length of time ( , seconds) from the time of the red light
to the arrival of the head of the pedestrian group in the crosswalk display
system to be analyzed . Same as 9. Therefore, = , and is the time
offset between the red light time points.

Fig. 9.
Definition of Arrival Time Point of Platoon

When the green light of the previous crosswalk (j) where a pedestrian group is
formed, the downstream crosswalk (i) is generally a red light (in the case of a
crosswalk, the delay can be calculated with a single delay
model). Therefore, if the arrival form of the pedestrian group is defined using
the order of appearance of the crosswalk (j, i) and the arrival time of the
pedestrian group ( ), Fig. It is divided into 9 arrival types such as 10.

Arrival type ① is the case where the head of the walking group arrives at the
effective red time ( ). When the trailing end of the walking group arrives at the
effective red time ( ) (①-①, RR form), the tail of the walking group arrives at
the effective green time ( ). ) (①-②, RG type), and when the trailing end of
the walking group arrives at the entry dilemma time ( ) (①-③, RGD type).
Fig. 10.
Arrival Types of Pedestrian Platoon

Arrival type ② is when the head of the walking group arrives at the effective
green time, when the trailing end of the walking group arrives at the effective
green time (②-①, GG type), and when the trailing end of the walking group
arrives at the entry dilemma time (②) -②, GD type), and when the trailing
end of the walking group arrives at the effective red time (②-③, GDR type).

Arrival type ③ is when the head of the walking group arrives at the entry
dilemma time, when the trailing end of the walking group arrives at the entry
dilemma time (③-①, DD form), and when the tail of the walking group arrives
at the effective red time (③) -②, DR type), and when the trailing end of the
walking group arrives at the effective green time (③-③, DRG type).

Among the nine arrival types, the GG type is the optimal case because there
is no waiting. Therefore, we propose a delay model for the walking group for
the remaining 8 arrival types in which waiting occurs.

3.3.3 RR type walking group retardation model

In general, the RR type can be said to be the most common pedestrian arrival
type because the vehicle signal is switched after a certain period of time has
elapsed (considering pedestrian safety) after the pedestrian signal. Walking
group in relation of the total waiting time is valid destination completed by
the arrival time of the red type and for the Fig. Same as 11. The total delay
( ) is a, , , , and using Eq. It is calculated as
(15). Eq. If (15) is divided by the demand of the walking group per cycle
( ), the average pedestrian delay ( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (16). Here
is and is.
Fig. 11.
RR Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

(15)

(16)

3.3.4 RG type walking group retardation model

The relationship between arrival type and total waiting time is shown in Fig.
1, as the pedestrian group arrived during the effective red and green time
during the road . equal to 12 The total delay ( ) is calculated using , , ,
and Eq. It is calculated as (17), and Eq. If (17) is divided by the
walking demand of the walking group per cycle ( ), the average pedestrian
delay ( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (18). Here is and is.

(17)

(18)
Fig. 12.
RG Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

3.3.5 RGD type walking group retardation model

As the pedestrian group arrived over the effective red time, effective green
time, and entry dilemma time during the road , the relationship between
arrival type and total waiting time is shown in Fig. Same as 13.

Fig. 13.
RGD Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time length of the walking

group arriving at the effective red time ( ), the time length of the walking
group arriving at the entry dilemma time ( = ), and the waiting
time until the green light after arriving during the time length ( ) Using the
length ( ), and Eq. It is calculated as (19). Eq. If (19) is
divided by the demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average
pedestrian delay ( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (20).
 (19)

(20)

3.3.6 GD type walking group retardation model

As the pedestrian group arrived during the effective green time and entry
dilemma time during the road , the relationship between the arrival type
and the total waiting time is shown in Fig. Same as 14. The RGD and GD
pedestrian groups can occur in the abnormal intersection structure and signal
operation, where the distance between crosswalks is long and the green
signal time for vehicle movement on sub-roads is short.

Fig. 14.
GD Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time length [ = ] of

the walking group arriving at the time of the entry dilemma, the length of time
after arriving for the time length ( ) and waiting until the green light
( ), and Eq. It is calculated as (21). Eq. If (21) is divided by the
demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average pedestrian delay ( ,
sec/person) is Eq. Same as (22).
 (21)

(22)

3.3.7 GDR type walking group retardation model

As the pedestrian group arrived over the effective green time, entry dilemma
time, and effective red time during the road , the relationship between
arrival type and total waiting time is shown in Fig. Same as 15. Similar to RGD
and GD, the GDR type can occur in a deformed intersection structure and
signal operation where the distance between crosswalks is long and the green
signal time for vehicle movement on sub-roads is short.

Fig. 15.
GDR Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time length ( ) of the

walking group arriving at the time of the entry dilemma ( ), the length of time
after arriving at the red signal for the time length ( ) and waiting until the green
light ( ), and Eq. It is calculated as (23). Eq. If (23) is divided
by the demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average pedestrian delay
( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (24).
 (23)

(24)

3.3.8 DD type walking group retardation model

As the walking group completed arrival during the dilemma time during the
road , the relationship between the arrival type and the total waiting time is
shown in Fig. equal to 16.

Fig. 16.
DD Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delay

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time difference between the

entry dilemma time and the arrival of the head of the walking group (
= ), the length of time waiting until the green light after arriving
during ( ), and Eq. It is calculated as (25). Eq. If (25) is
divided by the demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average
pedestrian delay ( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (26).

(25)
 (26)

3.3.9 DR type walking group retardation model

As the walking group arrived over the dilemma time and the effective red time
during the road , the relationship between the arrival type and the total
waiting time is shown in Fig. Same as 17.

Fig. 17.
DR Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time difference

between the time of entry dilemma and the arrival of the head of the walking
group ( = ), the length of time ( ) of some walking groups
that arrived during Eq. It is calculated as (27). Eq. If (27) is divided
by the demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average pedestrian delay
( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (28).

(27)

(28)

3.3.10 DRG type walking group retardation model

As the pedestrian group arrives over the entry dilemma time, the effective red
time, and the effective green time during the road , the relationship
between the arrival type and the total waiting time is shown in Fig. Same as
18.

Fig. 18.
DRG Type of Platoon Arrival and Total Delays

The total delay ( ) is , , , , the time difference between the

entry dilemma time and the arrival of the head of the walking group (
= ), and Eq. It is calculated as (29). Eq. If (29) is divided
by the demand for walking groups per cycle ( ), the average pedestrian delay
( , sec/person) is Eq. Same as (30).

(29)

(30)

3.3.11 Calculation of Pedestrian Delay in Crosswalks at Signal Intersections

Pedestrian delays in crosswalks at signal intersections are Eq. Eq. As in (31),

the average waiting delay ( , sec/s) in the direction of the crosswalk is
calculated.

(31)

Here, and are the (access road) uniform arrival walking demand
(person/hour) and the walking group demand (person/hour), and are the
(access road) average delay of uniform arrival (sec/person) and the average
delay of the walking group (person/hour). (seconds/person).
4. Evaluation of the development model
The performance evaluation of the development model was performed
through numerical simulation according to the scenario, and the HCM
pedestrian retardation model was selected as a comparison target. And
performance evaluation was divided/performed into a single crosswalk (IPC)
model and a signal intersection crosswalk (SPC) model.

4.1 Evaluation Results of Single Crosswalk Delay Model

Scenarios for performance evaluation of the developed IPC delay model are
as follows. Signal operating conditions were 140 seconds, G=40
seconds, =15 seconds, and the length of the entry dilemma time period ( )
was set from 0 to 15 seconds. By condition, the effective red time ( , sec) of
the IPC lag model (Eq. (9)) decreases from 125 sec to 110
sec ( optionally). And the delay (sec/person) calculated by the HCM model
(Eq. (10)) is 55.8.

The simulation analysis results are shown in Fig. 19, and the IPC model
shows that the overestimation can be adjusted up to 20% of the HCM
model. The results of the analysis are as follows: the effective green time
extension variable and , the length of the crossing dilemma time (to consider
additional crossings) . = 0 and = 0 of, but shows the same results as the
HCM model, the increase and are reduced to According to a further
crossing takes place during the time delay is 50.2 (10.1%). = 0 and when is
increased to 5 and 10 (that is, as the effective green time of the IPC model
increases to 20 and 25), the lag is decreasing by 51.4 (7.8%) and 47.2
(15.4%). And when additional crossings are considered during the entry
dilemma time period using , the delay is decreasing from 47.5 (14.9%) to 45.2
(19.1%).

Fig. 19.
Versatility of IPC Delay Model

As a result of the analysis, pedestrian delay in a single crosswalk is a variable

that determines pedestrian crossing behavior (cycle length (C), road width (m)
that determines the initial green time for pedestrians to enter, walking speed of
the pedestrian class, and effective green time extension value. ( ) and the
time length of the transversal dilemma ( )) show a difference in the level of
consideration, and this difference can be effectively explained by the IPC
model presented in this study. Therefore , it is judged that it is possible to
estimate the delay more precisely than the HCM model if the parameters of
the IPC model and are applied.

4.2 Evaluation result of delay model at signal intersection

Signal operation conditions for evaluating the performance of the SPC
retardation model were 140 seconds, G=40 seconds, and =15 seconds,
and for consideration of pedestrian crossing behaviors and were set to 5
seconds, respectively. Therefore, the average pedestrian delay by the HCM
model is 55.8 seconds, and the average delay by the IPC model is 49.5
seconds. RR and RG are common cases of arrival of pedestrian groups
formed at crosswalks at previous signal intersections. Therefore, the gait
group arrival form scenario was set to RR and RG, and the time length ( ) for
the gait group was set to 15 seconds. The simulation was performed with a
combination scenario of the ratio of the walking group to the pedestrian traffic
volume (Rate of platoon, PR, 0.0~1.0) and the arrival point during the effective
red time at the front of the walking group .

Fig. Figure 20 shows the numerical simulation results, and is the same as ,
where <85.0 is the RR arrival type, and when it is 85.0 , it is the RG
arrival type. The delay of the SPC model varies greatly from 0.0 to 92.5
seconds when PR is 1.0, and from 66.7 to 29.7 seconds when PR is 0.4. This
is because in the case of a signal intersection, the delay calculated by the
HCM model or the IPC model causes a problem of under/overestimation
depending on the arrival type of the pedestrian group, and the difference is
estimated until the RR arrival type and in the case of the RG arrival
type. It means that it can increase/decrease up to the level of retardation.
Fig. 20.
Versatility of SPC Delay Model

In the case of the RR form where < is , the problem of

underestimation occurs in the HCM and IPC models. An example of such
underestimation is that at a signal intersection operated by simultaneous
signals, the direction of lighting of vehicle signals is clockwise and the
direction of movement of pedestrians is counterclockwise. In other words, this
is because the pedestrian group moving in the opposite direction to the
vehicle signal lighting direction has to wait for three times of vehicle signal
lighting.

In the case of the RR type where < is , the problem of

overestimation occurs in the HCM and IPC models. This overestimation
problem mainly occurs at signal intersections operated with trailing left
turns, and increases when the length of the left turn display is short
(ie, large) and when the PR is high. In addition, the simultaneous vehicle
signal during pedestrian green time is relatively long, and the overestimation
problem occurs in the case of a pedestrian group moving in the same direction
as the vehicle signal lighting direction.

In the case of the RG type where < is , the problem of

overestimation reaches the maximum in the HCM and IPC models, and
occurs in the following cases. After crossing the pedestrian group formed at
the time of simultaneous vehicle signal, if the pedestrian group crosses in
green time at the next simultaneous signal, or crosses north-south and then
crosses east-west after a vehicle signal operated with straight two-way traffic,
the waiting time of the pedestrian group is short. lose Also, there is a problem
of overestimation when crossing the main road after pedestrians cross the
subroad at the T-shaped intersection. This overestimation problem is (
)→+0.0 and is amplified as PR increases.

As a result of the above analysis, the signal operation conditions of the signal
intersection form various types of pedestrian arrivals, and the arrival types of
pedestrian groups are the main cause of the over/underestimation problem of
the HCM pedestrian delay model (which does not consider the walking
group). If the delay due to random arrival and the arrival of the pedestrian
group is calculated using the developed IPC model and the SPC model,
respectively, and the calculated delay is integrated into the ratio of the walking
group, it is possible to dramatically increase the accuracy of the pedestrian
delay calculation under various signal operating conditions. is judged to
be Therefore, using the pedestrian retardation model presented in this study, it
will be possible to evaluate pedestrian-centered differential signal operation.

5. Conclusion and future research

The main traffic subjects of the signal intersection can be divided into vehicles
and pedestrians, and the delay of vehicles and pedestrians is widely used as
a major performance indicator of the signal intersection. Therefore, HCM
(2013) and USHCM (2000, 2010, 2016) present models for evaluating vehicle
and pedestrian delays, respectively. However, while the vehicle delay
calculation model is advanced to suit the field, the pedestrian delay calculation
model presents a simple method that does not consider the movement
behavior of pedestrians. In particular, the pedestrian retardation model has a
problem of excessive over/under estimation. Therefore, an accurate
pedestrian delay model is required for the design and operation analysis of
pedestrian-oriented differentiated signal intersections suitable for the
pedestrian-oriented analysis paradigm.

As part of overcoming the limitations of the current pedestrian delay model

above and achieving the goal of pedestrian-centered signal operation
analysis, in this study, the IP model for single crosswalk application and the
SPC model for signal intersection application were presented separately.
. The IPC model was developed to consider additional crossings in the
additional effective yellowing time and dilemma time based on pedestrian
crossing behavior, and it was analyzed that it can effectively overcome the
overestimation problem of the HCM model. The SPC model was developed by
modeling the walking group formed by the signal operation of the signal
intersection, integrating the walking group delay model that reflects the
movement and arrival of the walking group and the IPC model (reflecting
random arrival not included in the walking group). The SPC model not only
overcomes the over/underestimation problem of the HCM model, but also
showed that it can calculate reasonable and differentiated pedestrian delays
under various signal operating conditions. In particular, the pedestrian delay
model developed in this study can be applied immediately because pedestrian
traffic flow does not generally cause oversaturation and pedestrian movement
is dependent on signal operation.

This study focused on the development of a pedestrian retardation model

suitable for IPC and SPC and its applicability. Therefore, the following future
research is needed. First, it is necessary to verify and settle the model through
on-site verification. In the case of the IPC model, it is necessary to verify and
settle parameters for the lane width, the location characteristics of the
crosswalk, and the pedestrian class. In the case of the SPC model, in addition
to the verification of the model under various signal operating conditions, it is
necessary to settle the parameters. The verification of the model should be
performed according to the formation and arrival patterns of the walking
group. And with respect to the form of the walking group, it is necessary to
improve the accuracy of the SPC model by dividing it into a saturated walking
group and an additional arrival walking group. Second, the arrival behavior of
the pedestrian group at the signal intersection generally shows the form of RR
and RG, so the model was simplified to an accurate level in consideration of
applicability. On the other hand, various variables were introduced for the
arrival behaviors of specific walking groups (RGD, GD, GDR, DD, DR, DRG),
and they were not simplified into one generalized model. Therefore, in the
case of the arrival behavior of a special walking group, it is necessary to
improve the accuracy through on-site verification and to simplify the model in
consideration of applicability. Finally, the model presented in this study is for
independent signal intersections. Therefore, in order to analyze pedestrians
centered on the passage path in the road axis (or signal operation group)
composed of signal intersections, it is necessary to expand/develop the model
to the path of the pedestrian group between intersections.