Research on Pedestrian Behavior
and Traffic Characteristics at
Unsignalized Midblock Crosswalk
Case Study in Beijing
Jiangang Shi, Yanyan Chen, Futian Ren, and Jian Rong
Pedestrians are vulnerable road users of the traffic system. In China,
many pedestrians lack a knowledge of traffic rules and are not fully aware
of safety problems. A high-risk area for pedestrians, the unsignalized mid-
block crosswalk is a conflict zone between pedestrians and through vehi-
cles. In this paper, behaviors and traffic characteristics of pedestrians
walking through the unsignalized midblock crosswalk without being dis-
turbed by other pedestrians are analyzed. The data, including pedestrian
speed, waiting delay, and clustering, are obtained by counting and mea-
suring with a video camera. Pedestrian behaviors are analyzed with the
use of comparisons between various categories and through statistics
analysis. Pedestrian behaviors are interpreted further by analyzing
pedestrians’ tactics when they cross the street and the valid gap in the
vehicle flow, based on observations and measurements of pedestrians
starting to walk across and of vehicle arrivals. Finally, the similarities and
differences between this research and other research is explained by com-
paring pedestrian speed studies. Results of this research will not only help
improve research on pedestrian characteristics at interrupted pedestrian
facilities but will also help in developing traffic safety audit work and
related countermeasures.
According to the World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention by
the World Health Organization (1), fatalities and injuries involving
road traffic have already been a burden to global economic develop-
ment, seriously influencing safety and the quality of life of people in
countries worldwide.
In developing countries, road users are complex. Pedestrians are
vulnerable road users within the traffic system, and many lack knowl-
edge about traffic rules. In China, the damage in traffic crashes is more
serious than in developed countries (1), thus pedestrians are in more
danger on the roads. Comparing the reasons for crashes, pedestrian
and bicyclist noncompliance directly accounted for 12.8% of fatal
crashes in Beijing, and about 70% of fatal crashes are at least partly
related to that cause (2). According to the record of pedestrian-
related crashes at intersections in 2003 and 2004 in the Beijing
urban area, there were 867 crashes in total, with 753 injuries and
220 fatalities. The average number of injuries and fatalities per
Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering, Beijing University of Technology, No. 100
Pingleyuan, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China. Corresponding author: J. Shi,
gangfish@emails.bjut.edu.cn.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2038, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2007, pp. 23–33.
DOI: 10.3141/2038-04
23
crash is 0.87 and 0.25, respectively. In developing countries includ-
ing China, researchers paid more attention to vehicle traffic in the
beginning of their research, so they lack knowledge and experience
in regard to pedestrians. Systemic research on pedestrian behaviors
and traffic characteristics will improve the safety level for pedestri-
ans walking on the roads and increase the efficiency of the traffic
system. It will also be useful for effective countermeasures against
pedestrian injuries.
Hazardous to pedestrians, the unsignalized midblock crosswalk is
a conflict area between pedestrians and vehicles. The behavior and
traffic characteristics of pedestrians walking across the street are foun-
dations for traffic design and management. Pedestrian behaviors and
traffic characteristics at an unsignalized crosswalk were observed and
measured from video. Results of the research will be a reference for
improving the research on pedestrian characteristics at interrupted
pedestrian facilities. It is not only effective for traffic safety work and
management in practice, but also for developing traffic safety audit
work and related countermeasures, which are guaranties for safety
management.
ROAD TRAFFIC CONDITIONS
The crosswalk in the survey is near the south gate of Beijing Uni-
versity of Technology (BJUT). It is an unsignalized midblock cross-
walk between two signalized intersections; the distance between the
crosswalk and each intersection is approximately 150 m. Because of
upstream traffic controls, vehicle arrival is discrete and continuous
alternatively, according to upstream phases.
To the north of the road is the BJUT campus. And to the south are
public communities, including a bank, post office, supermarket, and
residential area. During the observation period most of the pedestri-
ans there crossed the road for daily living trip purposes. Because the
traffic volume on the side street was low, the crosswalk on the main
road path was studied. The width of each direction of the through
roadway is 12 m, and the median is 1.8 m. The survey included two
2-h periods during two afternoons.
Figure 1 presents a photograph and an illustration of the surveyed
spot. During the survey period, the traffic volume on the north road
was 698 vph (vehicles per hour) from east to west and the average
vehicle speed was 38.9 km/h; for the south road it was 815 vph and
33.5 km/h, respectively.
The north road was selected for analysis. The upstream (to the east
of the crosswalk) intersection is a signalized intersection with 52 s
of east–west green time and 60 s red in the cycle. Vehicles appear
24 Transportation Research Record 2038

Surveyed crosswalk

W
South gate of Beijing
N Univ. of Tech.

(a)

Residential area Bank Post office Supermarket

South gate of BJUT

Legend: Direction of walk Bus-stop

N
Waiting zone Attract spot of pedestrian

(b)

FIGURE 1 Survey location: (a) photograph and (b) illustration.

downstream regularly at intervals of about 2 min. The essential CHARACTERISTICS OF PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC
relationship between vehicles and pedestrians is that a gap in the AT CROSSWALKS
vehicle flow can give pedestrians a chance to walk through. And
within a period how many times and how long will valid acceptable Pedestrian Speed
gaps be provided to pedestrians to cross. Acceptable gaps allowing
pedestrians to walk across can be determined by measuring vehicle There are 565 pedestrian samples in the survey period, excluding chil-
headway and observing pedestrian behaviors. dren and elders. Pedestrians walking at a reasonable speed, 520 sam-
Figure 2 shows the intervals between two vehicle arrivals in line ples, were kept for analysis, after excluding samples whose speed was
with the dots. The diamond dots show whether a pedestrian walks greater than 3 m/s. Samples in two road transects are combined, thus
through the crosswalk during the headway period; 1 is for “yes” and there are a total of 1,040 samples. Gender, number of pedestrians in
0 is for “no.” Because the upstream signal regulates vehicle arrival, the group, and trip purpose (direction) are analyzed in relation to their
the acceptable gap occurs with regularity. Two continuous acceptable influence on speed.
gaps are infrequent, and three continuous acceptable gaps are more Table 1 shows the speed statistical data divided into different
infrequent. categories: gender, walk group, and trip purpose (direction).

25 2
Headway of vehicle (s)

20

15
1
10

0 0
3.36

73.2
121

172

219

278
328

368

393
429

475

509
549

577

619
694

738

760
816

847

882
934

993

1033
1060

1105

1138

Time (s)

FIGURE 2 Headway of vehicle and related pedestrian decision making for crossing at crosswalks.
Shi, Chen, Ren, and Rong 25

TABLE 1 Pedestrian Speed in Different Categories

Category No. of Pedestrians No. of Speed Samples Average Speed (m/s)

1, gender
Male 299 598 1.574
Female 221 442 1.474
2, group constitution
1 pedestrian 247 494 1.579
2 pedestrians 200 400 1.478
3 or more pedestrians 73 146 1.520
3, direction (purpose)
South→north 220 440 1.672
North→south 300 600 1.435

NOTE: Number of pedestrian in group constitution means the number of individuals.

Difference in Gender
Men walk at a higher speed than women, with a larger range. Figure 3
shows the speed histogram and normal curve by gender.
Difference in Group Constitution
basis of the results of paired sample tests of speed (t = 0.576, Sig.
(2-tailed) = 0.565, P > .05, α = 0.05.) in the two stages, there is no
obvious change in the before and after speed data. So, on the sections
of crosswalk separated by a median, pedestrian walk courses are
independent and there is no consequence relationship between the
speeds in two stages.

Figure 4 shows pedestrian speed box plots by group constitution.

When two pedestrians walk together, they walk at a slower speed than
in other categories. The reason is that most pedestrians of this type are
talking as they walk and are at ease and less cautious. When pedestri-
ans go out for a particular purpose, most will be absorbed in the trip.
When pedestrians are in larger groups, they will pay more attention to
gait harmony, which results in the smaller range shown in Figure 4 for
groups of three or more pedestrians.
Difference in Trip Purpose
Because most pedestrians are going to or from campus, the direction
should show trip purpose tightly. Pedestrians traveling from north to
south are “going out” and those from south to north are “returning.”
Pedestrians walk out of campus from north to south at a slower speed
compared with those who are returning.
Pedestrian Speed in Different Stages
on Crosswalk
Depending on the situation, pedestrians cross at different speeds using
various approaches, which can be differentiated into four categories:
Waiting Time
Pedestrian waiting time on the roadside or median depends on two
aspects: (a) the gap between the pedestrian and upstream vehicle
arrival and (b) the use of a crossing opportunity, which depends on
what is considered an acceptable gap according to the physical and
psychological condition of the individual. Risk-taking types and
impatient pedestrians will make use of a shorter gap to cross, com-
pared with the more guarded types and patient pedestrians who wait
for a longer gap.
The pressure involved in the trip will also influence what is consid-
ered an acceptable gap by the pedestrian; in urgent conditions a pedes-
trian will make use of a shorter gap than his or her desired critical gap,
and in easy conditions only longer gaps would be used. These behav-
iors influence the waiting time and delay. Table 2 shows the waiting
time statistics for pedestrians on the roadside and median. Figure 6
presents a histogram of pedestrians on the north roadside and a dia-
gram of pedestrian position changing over time. There the behavior
differences between walking and waiting are shown directly. There
samples cluster in a short waiting time range, but in the long waiting
time range, the distribution is discrete, which explains the different
conditions, situations, and individual decision-making behaviors.

1. Walking at an even speed; Analysis of Acceptable Gap

2. Halting to stay on course;
3. Accelerating midway, mainly after the midline; and There are three conditions in which pedestrians walk across the
4. Decelerating midway, mainly after the midline. road (3):

Pedestrian speed varies with the condition of upstream vehicle
arrival and the tactics used by pedestrians when they walk across
the road.
Figure 5 shows pedestrian speed distribution in two stages. Pedes-
trian speed on the first half (from roadside to median) is 1.54 m/s, and
the standard deviation is 0.44 m/s. For the second half (from median
to opposite roadside) it is 1.52 m/s and 0.45 m/s, respectively. On the
1. Waiting for opportunity to cross. Only when there is a sufficient
gap to cross or a vehicle stops will the pedestrian walk across.
2. Rushing walk. There is no sufficient gap in the vehicle platoon,
but the pedestrian walks in a rush or runs across the road.
3. Meeting a sufficient gap on arrival and walking across normally.
When pedestrian arrives, there is a sufficient gap, so the pedestrian
walks through normally without waiting.
26 Transportation Research Record 2038

70

60

50
Number of samples

40

30

20

10 Std. Dev = .43

Mean = 1.47
N = 442.00
0
.50 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
.63 .88 1.13 1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63 2.88
Pedestrian speeds (m/s)
(a)

100

80
Number of samples

60

40

20
Std. Dev = .45
Mean = 1.57

0 N = 598.00
.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75
Pedestrian speeds (m/s)
(b)

FIGURE 3 Pedestrian speed histograms and normal curves, by gender: (a) women
and (b) men.
Shi, Chen, Ren, and Rong 27

3.5

3.0 12
180
672
8
593
330
8 656
7 562
65
684
649 16
107
8
1
0

512
4
3
2.5

Pedestrian speed (m/s)

2.0

1.5

1.0

.5

0.0
N= 494 400 146
1 2 3 and up
Group types

FIGURE 4 Pedestrian speed box plots of various group constitutions.

In the third condition, a minority of pedestrians will use the
whole headway as the gap because they arrive at a time that a
vehicle has just driven through. Most times there is a lag between
the pedestrian’s arrival and a vehicle leaving the crosswalk, but
the remaining gap is still sufficient for the pedestrian to walk
through safely. During the critical gap, a vehicle can run through
with its original speed and the pedestrian can finish walking
through safely at an ordinary speed.
The lag should be excluded in discussing the accurate valid
acceptable gap. Actually, to determine the critical gap, the focus
should be on the condition in which most pedestrians would not
refuse the valid gap to start and finish crossing at the crosswalk.
Pedestrian samples from north to south on the north crosswalk
(and adjacent area) were analyzed for the critical gap. The valid gaps
pedestrians used were in the 3.81- to 34.89-s range; the refused gaps
were in the 0.28- to 6.33-s range. That means that when pedestrians
encounter gaps in the 3.81- to 6.33-s range, the decision making is
ambiguous and the answer will be yes or no according to gender,
trip purpose, weather, and so on.
Figure 7a shows cumulative frequencies of samples of the two
types above. The upper blue diamond dots in the graph are samples
of acceptable gaps and the lower pink round dots are the refused
gaps. There is a flat section in which gaps are near to 10 s; in the
range from 10 s to 15 s with 50th percentile cumulative frequency,
there is a leap in the trend. When the gaps become longer, more
pedestrians will accept them, and there is no difference in deci-
sions for different pedestrians. Only short gaps show the influence
of personal decision on gap choice. Refer to related research (4–6);
in this paper samples were selected with a 12-s threshold. With regres-
sion curves and equations of revised acceptable gaps and refused
gaps (Figure 7b), the critical gap can be obtained with the solution
of two regression equations. The critical gap at which pedestrians
walk across the crosswalk should be 4.8 s.
ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIORS
Walking Tactics
Pedestrians have their own particular ways of crossing roads; the
tactics are sorted into four types (3):
1. Walk through directly perpendicular to the roadside in crosswalk
area given a sufficient gap;
2. Cross noncompliantly in a sidelong direction (not perpendicular
to the roadside and in the direction of the crosswalk);
3. Walk through the road by lanes, using the gap in each lane
instead of a gap in the whole road; and
4. After at first misjudging the gap, retreat and wait for a sufficient
gap, then finish walking using one of the three tactics mentioned above.
Pedestrians use tactics according to their own personal styles,
vehicle traffic conditions, and some factors in the environment.
One principle in walking is the least cost. Some pedestrians take
shortcuts. When their destination is not directly across the crosswalk,
they walk across the road toward their destination, instead of walking
straight along the crosswalk.
In the survey spot there are three lanes in each direction, and some
pedestrians walked through by lane according to the vehicles upstream.
When they met insufficient gaps, they waited on the lane line.
During the observation, the following two tactics were added for
a detailed description:
5. Walk through perpendicular to the roadside but outside the
crosswalk area on the road and
6. Run instead of walk.
Figure 8 shows the percentage each tactic was used at the south
and north section of the road. Tactic 2 was used a greater percentage
28 Transportation Research Record 2038

80

60
Number of samples

40

20

Std. Dev = .44

Mean = 1.54
N = 520.00
0
.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
.75 1.25 1.75 2.25 2.75
Pedestrian speeds (m/s)
(a)

80

60
Number of samples

40

20

Std. Dev = .45

Mean = 1.52
N = 520.00
0
.50 .75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 2.75
.63 .88 1.13 1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63 2.88
Pedestrian speeds (m/s)
(b)

FIGURE 5 Pedestrian speeds in two stages at crosswalk: (a) samples at the first-half stage
and (b) samples at the second-half stage.
Shi, Chen, Ren, and Rong
TABLE 2 Pedestrian Waiting Time Statistics
Samples Samples
on Sides of on Sides of
Index North Road South Road
No. of samples (pedestrians) 565 565
No. without waiting 118 114
No. with waiting 447 451
Waiting samples
Maximum waiting time (s) 53.22 56.11
Minimum (nonzero) waiting time (s) 1 0.96
Mean waiting time (s) 7.95 9.78
Average waiting time (s) 8.56 9.34
Whole samples
Average waiting time (delay) (s) 6.77 7.46
of the time in the south section than in the north section, which shows
the influence of destination on pedestrian tactics. There are several
destinations on the south side. But on the north side, the south gate
of BJUT is directly toward the crosswalk, which resulted in less
noncompliance using Tactic 2. Noncompliant pedestrians may cause
many hidden problems at the crosswalk. In the observation, about
one-fifth to one-fourth of pedestrians in Category 2 cross using
Tactic 3 simultaneously.
Relationship Between Gaps and Waiting Times
Pedestrians require a longer gap in crossing an upright vehicle flow
than vehicles because they are vulnerable road users and easy to injure
in a conflict. Although pedestrians occupy absolute priority in the
crosswalk, they seldom walk in a rush even if they arrive earlier at a
place in the road with a high potential for collision with an oncoming
vehicle (earlier than the vehicle does). There are interactions between
pedestrians and vehicles. Many factors, including driver behav-
iors, walker behaviors, and the traffic environment, will influence
acceptable gaps; as a result these factors influence waiting times.
Pedestrians continue to wait for an acceptable gap, but when the
waiting time is too long to bear, the behavior and traffic characteris-
tics of pedestrians may change. Some pedestrians will accept a shorter
gap after refusing several longer gaps. They may run across at risk,
and drivers will have to slow down or change lanes to maintain a safe
space, which disturbs the traffic system.
If there are many pedestrians, the times that pedestrians accumu-
late together and walk across in large groups will increase. Because
driver behavior can be influenced by pedestrian behavior, pedestrians
in a crowd will use shorter gaps for crossing. Most drivers slow down
when they encounter pedestrians in a large group, but they will main-
tain their speed when only several pedestrians are in the crosswalk.
In the observation, few pedestrians took risks and most yielded to
vehicles. The situation of a vehicle yielding to a pedestrian did not
occur, which forced pedestrians to wait a long time for acceptable
gaps. Pedestrians did gather and walk across in a platoon or crowd. In
similar spots, the acceptable gap depended on physical and mental
condition and waiting time.
The relationship between changes in pedestrian behavior and
waiting time is very complex. In this paper, the relationship
between pedestrian behavior, the action of waiting, and the accept-
able gaps are discussed in simple terms. Figure 9 presents box plots
29
of acceptable gaps for pedestrians in the waiting condition and the
without waiting condition. It shows that acceptable gaps for with
waiting are centralized in a smaller range than that for without waiting.
This can be interpreted as vehicles restricting pedestrians’ personal
walking characteristics.
Pedestrians Assembled in Waiting Zone
Because pedestrians and vehicles appear at any particular spot at
random intervals, the waiting time and the number of pedestrians
assembled in the waiting zone are stochastic variables. On March 25
from 16:00 to 16:55, there were 97 pedestrians from north to south
and 698 vehicles passed through. The number of pedestrians waiting
was counted in 15-s intervals, and the average value was 0.3.
According to the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000), the
number of pedestrians in an unsignalized crossing is determined by
pedestrian and vehicle flow rate. The number of pedestrians in the
waiting zone is obtained by using the following equation (7):
+ ve − vtc
v p tc
v pe
Nc = ) (1)
(v + v ) e(
v p − v tc
p
where
Nc = typical number of pedestrians (p) in waiting zone,
vp = pedestrian flow rate (ped/s),
v = vehicle flow rate (veh/s), and
tc = single pedestrian critical gap (s).
In the observation spot, vp was 0.03 ped/s, v was 0.19 veh/s, and tc
was 3.81 s and 4.8 s, the minimum of observed and calculated critical
gap. The values of Nc were then found to be 0.31 and 0.23, respec-
tively. The calculated value of 0.31 is almost equal to the observed
value of 0.3. This verified that the equation in HCM2000 is useful
for estimating the number of pedestrians waiting in unsignalized
crossings in China.
COMPARISON OF PEDESTRIAN SPEEDS
“Pedestrian speeds, in addition to being directly related to traffic
density, have been found to vary for a wide range of conditions,
including individual age, sex, personal disabilities, environment
factors, and trip purpose” (8). Generally, the distribution of pedes-
trian speed is stable in similar spots. In this section, pedestrian
speed at the crosswalk in the observation spot is compared with
pedestrian speeds at other spots.
Comparison with Speed at Signalized Crossing
Pedestrian speed at an unsignalized crosswalk in a roadway is higher
than that of a signalized crossing because at the former conflicts are
more intense. At a crosswalk in a signalized crossing in Beijing,
pedestrian speed is in the 1.25-m/s to 1.29-m/s range (9). Many pedes-
trians do not know the time at which stages shift, so on the first half
section of the crosswalk pedestrian speed is higher than in the latter
half, which is from 1.30 to 1.35 m/s. And the speed is slower than at
an unsignalized crossing. At a signalized crosswalk, the speed for
males is 1.29 m/s and for females it is 1.24 m/s, a smaller speed
difference between genders than at an unsignalized crosswalk.
30 Transportation Research Record 2038

140

120

100
Number of Samples

80

60

40

20 Std. Dev = 8.7

Mean = 6.8
N = 565.00
0
0.

4.

8.

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

44

48

52
0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0

.0
Waiting Time(s)
(a)

500

450

400

350

300
Time (s)

250

200

150

100

50

0
-2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Position (m)
(b)

FIGURE 6 Pedestrian waiting time: (a) histogram of waiting time and (b) diagram of position
versus time elapses.
Shi, Chen, Ren, and Rong 31

40 5 6
35 10.0% 11.8% 1
30 4 2
Time (s)

25 0.9% 3
20 1
3 4
15 7.6% 51.7% 5
10
2 6
5 18.0%
0
(a)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Accumulative frequency
(a) 5
8.2%
6
14 4 5.8%
1.0% 1
12
y = -8.1002x2 + 15.171x + 3.7726 3 2
10 18.8% 3
Time (s)

8 4
6 1 5
2 61.4% 6
4
y = 5.7154e-2.3554x 4.8%
2 (b)
0
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% FIGURE 8 Pie charts of pedestrian tactics during the
observation: (a) south and (b) north. (See Key, page 27.)
Accumulative frequency
(b)

FIGURE 7 Scatter dots of pedestrian accepted gaps and refused
gaps: (a) all samples and (b) filtered samples.
Comparison with Speed on Walkway
To make speed comparisons between different types of facilities in
the same area, pedestrian speeds on a walkway were also observed.
There are 208 samples sorted into three categories according to
platoon constitution, including 77 sets of single pedestrians, 50 sets
of two pedestrians, and nine sets of three or more (four sets of four).
The average speeds are 1.25 m/s, 1.07 m/s, and 1.03 m/s, with stan-
dard deviations of 0.25, 0.20, and 0.21, respectively. Pedestrian speed
on the footpath is from 0.89 m/s to 1.37 m/s (Figure 10).
Because of the calming environment, pedestrian speed on the
footpath is slower than at a crosswalk, no matter what type of
control.
Researchers in Beijing University of Technology conducted pedes-
trian speed surveys in the 1980s in Beijing (10). In that decade,
pedestrian speed was in the 0.5 m/s to 2.17 m/s range. And most
samples were in the 1.0 m/s to 1.33 m/s range; 12.7% of samples were
lower than the range and 22.6% were higher.

40

30

20
Acceptable gap (s)

10

0
N= 51 46
N Y
WAITING

FIGURE 9 Box plots of acceptable gaps for pedestrians in the waiting

condition (Y) and the without waiting condition (N).
32 Transportation Research Record 2038

30 20

20

10

10

Frequency
Frequency

Std. Dev = .25 Std. Dev = .20

Mean = 1.25 Mean = 1.07
N = 77.00 N = 100.00
0 0
.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50 .69 .81 .94 1.06 1.19 1.31 1.44
.88 1.13 1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63 .75 .88 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.38
(a) (b)

10 50

8 40

6 30

4 20
Frequency
Frequency

2 10
Std. Dev = .21 Std. Dev = .24

Mean = 1.03 Mean = 1.13

N = 31.00 0 N = 208.00
0
.69 .81 .94 1.06 1.19 1.31 1.44 .63 .88 1.13 1.38 1.63 1.88 2.13 2.38 2.63
.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.50
.75 .88 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.38

(c) (d)

FIGURE 10 Pedestrian speeds on walkway in different group constitutions: (a) single pedestrian, (b) two pedestrians,
(c) three or four pedestrians, and (d) all samples.

TABLE 3 General Comparison of Pedestrian Speeds

Pedestrian Average Speed

Researcher Spots or Condition or Main Speed Range (m/s)

Beijing Univ. of Tech. Uninterrupted facilities in Beijing 1.0∼1.33 (10 and 15)
Walkway 0.89∼1.37 (this paper)
Unsignalized midblock crosswalk 1.46∼1.67 (this paper)
Crosswalk in signalized intersection 1.25∼1.35 (9)
Bowman and Vecellio Elderly Swedish, 15th percentile 0.7
Coffin and Morrall Elderly pedestrian, 15th percentile midblock 1.0
Signalized intersection 1.2
Griffiths et al. Unsignalized crossing, young 1.72
Unsignalized crossing, middle age 1.47
Unsignalized crossing, elderly 1.16
HCM2000 value Average walking speed 1.22 (7)
ITE recommendation Crosswalk 1.1∼1.2
John J. Fruin Normal walking speed 0.76∼1.76
Knoblauch et al. Excluded elders, 15th percentile 1.25
Lam et al. During the Walk indication 1.27
Noncompliant pedestrian 1.5
Pushkarev and Zupan Normal walking speed 0.73∼2.0
Tanaboriboon et al. Elderly pedestrian, Singapore 0.9

NOTE: Excluding those sources with citations, all others are cited in Milazzo et al. (12, 13).
Shi, Chen, Ren, and Rong
General Comparison
In a comparative study of the work of various researchers on speed,
flow, and density relationships for walking facilities, Pushkarev and
Zuban found that although pedestrian speeds were widely distributed,
most fell within the range of 0.73 m/s and 2.0 m/s (11). According to
other researchers’ results, depending on the pedestrians’ age and spots
surveyed, typical speed values are 0.9, 1.0, 1.2, 1.25, 1.4, and 1.5 m/s
(12). A crosswalk is an interrupted pedestrian facility, and the
speed there is higher than in uninterrupted facilities (13, 14), such as
walkways or station halls.
Table 3 presents some pedestrian speed research results.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This research attempts to enrich the database of pedestrian research
in the field of traffic characteristics and safety, by analyzing speed,
behaviors, and critical gaps. The numerical values in this paper are
useful for signalization. Based on results and comparisons, the fol-
lowing are some recommendations for the type of crosswalk that was
studied:
• A pedestrian signal should be installed to eliminate the conflict
between vehicles and pedestrians, and a push-button signal should
be provided.
• In peak hours, the signal should be pretimed to be coordinated
with upstream intersection (traffic) control; a 10-s offset of the signal
is suggested, depending on the distance between the crosswalk and
the upstream intersection.
• The suggested revised design pedestrian speed is 1.2 m/s, to
consider elders and pedestrians in parties.
• The suggested minimum green time for the pedestrian signal is
30 s, according to Equation 16-2 in HCM2000; it is longer than the
calculated value.
• On each end of the crosswalk, a supplemental sign should be
set up to guide pedestrians walking in the crosswalk area.
• During design, consideration should be given to a waiting zone
for pedestrians to stand in. The zone would be dependent on the num-
ber of assembled pedestrians, results for acceptable gaps in which
pedestrians can cross the street, forecast vehicle volume, and number
of pedestrians per minute.
Pedestrian behaviors should be taken adequately into consider-
ation in traffic safety management. Education, enforcement, engi-
neering, and many related knowledge areas should be put into
practice to improve traffic conditions. It is the responsibility of both
policy makers and technical staffs to improve pedestrian safety,
convenience, and road traffic efficiency. Related operations con-
sist of the following:
• Execute education and enforcement work continually to decrease
pedestrian noncompliance when pedestrians cross the street.
• Promote a traffic calming campaign to advise drivers to slow
down or stop at the crosswalk to yield to pedestrians, the vulnerable
road users.
33
• Install a guardrail in the middle of the road to regulate pedestrian
behavior and enhance safety.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper and related research were sponsored by the Beijing Munic-
ipal Science and Technology Commission. The authors express their
gratitude to the reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.
REFERENCES
1. World Report On Road Traffic Injury Prevention Summary. World
Health Organization and World Bank, 2004. www.who.int/roadsafety.
Accessed July 30, 2006.
2. Statistic Report of Traffic Accidents in Beijing from January to July in
2005. Beijing Traffic Management Bureau. 2005. 210.73.74.194/admin/
infofiles/view2.php?id=160. Accessed July 30, 2006.
3. Futian, R., L. Xiaoming, et al. Traffic Engineering Psychology (in
Chinese). Beijing University of Technology Press, Beijing, 1993.
4. Lyons, G., J. Hunt, and F. McLeod. A Neural Network Model for
Enhanced Operation of Midblock Signaled Pedestrian Crossings. Euro-
pean Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, 2001, pp. 346–354.
5. Oxley, J. A., E. Ihsen, B. N. Fildes, J. L. Charlton, and R. H. Day. Cross-
ing Roads Safely: An Experimental Study of Age Differences in Gap
Selection by Pedestrians. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 37,
2005, pp. 962–971.
6. Sarker, M. N. J., H. Koike, and A. Morimoto. Assessment of Gap-
Actuated Pushbutton Signal Using Traffic Simulation Model. In Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1695, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.,
1999, pp. 23–25.
7. Highway Capacity Manual. TRB, National Research Council, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2000.
8. Gray, G. E., and L. A. Hoel. Public Transportation, 2nd ed. Prentice Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1992.
9. Sun, Z. Research on Pedestrian Traffic Characteristics on Crosswalk in
Signalized Intersection (in Chinese). Master’s thesis. Beijing University
of Technology, 2004.
10. Traffic Engineering Teaching Materials (in Chinese). Beijing University
of Technology, Tongji University, and Nanjing Institute of Technology
(former Southeast University), 1983.
11. Pushkarev, B., and J. M. Zupan. Capacity of Walkways. In Trans-
portation Research Record 538, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 1–15.
12. Milazzo, J. S., II, N. M. Rouphail, J. E. Hummer, and D. P. Allen. Qual-
ity of Service for Interrupted-Flow Pedestrian Facilities in Highway-
Capacity Manual 2000. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1678, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 25–31.
13. Milazzo, J. S., II, N. M. Rouphail, J. E. Hummer, and D. P. Allen. Qual-
ity of Service for Uninterrupted-Flow Pedestrian Facilities in Highway-
Capacity Manual 2000. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, No. 1678, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 18–24.
14. Young, S. B. Evaluation of Pedestrian Walking Speeds in Airport Ter-
minals. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 1674, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 20–26.
15. Jiqian, X., Y. Tao, et al. Traffic Engineering Pandect (in Chinese). China
Communications Press, Beijing, 1991.
The Transportation in the Developing Countries Committee sponsored publication
of this paper.