This article was downloaded by: [University of York]

On: 20 August 2014, At: 08:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Transportation Planning and

Technology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gtpt20

Analysis of factors affecting the

choice of route of pedestrians
a b
P. N. Seneviratne & J. F. Morrall
a
Department of Civil Engineering , Technical University of
Nova Scotia , Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
b
Department of Civil Engineering , University of Calgary ,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Published online: 21 Mar 2007.

To cite this article: P. N. Seneviratne & J. F. Morrall (1985) Analysis of factors affecting the
choice of route of pedestrians, Transportation Planning and Technology, 10:2, 147-159

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081068508717309

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information
(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor
& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties
whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The
accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently
verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable
for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/
page/terms-and-conditions
 Transportation Planning and Technology, 1985, Vol. 10, pp. 147-159 © Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Inc. and OPA Ltd., 1985
0308-1060/85/1002-0147 $18.50/0 Printed in the United Kingdom

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE CHOICE

OF ROUTE OF PEDESTRIANS
P. N. SENEVIRATNE
Department of Civil Engineering, Technical University of Nova Scotia,
Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
J. F. MORRALL
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary,
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

Pedestrians as compared to vehicular traffic enjoy a high degree freedom of movement even in heavily
congested areas. Consequently, there are more alternative links available to pedestrians between a given
origin-destination (O-D) pair. This paper describes a study done by the University of Calgary to evaluate
the factors affecting the choice of route on intra-CBD trips or trips within the Central Business District
(CBD).
An origin destination survey conducted in downtown Calgary, Alberta enabled the identification of the
most significant factors influencing the choice. These factors were analyzed in relation to the physical
characteristics of the location, personal characteristics of the trip maker and the type of the trip.
It appears that most people chose the shortest link and factors such as the level of congestion, safety or
visual attractions were only secondary. This suggests that the length should be made a major consideration
when planning and designing pedestrian links.

INTRODUCTION
Over 75 percent of intra-CBD trips which are less than approximately 200 m
(6500 ft.) are made on foot. The trip length frequency distributions do not change
much, even in cities where free shuttle transit is available.1'2 Nevertheless, the
pedestrian travel patterns are the least understood, especially in terms of the basic
needs of pedestrians. The planning and design techniques developed for pedestrian
facilities are closely associated with traffic engineering principles and often bear little
or no relation to the actual pedestrian movement patterns. For instance, some of the
major factors considered in the provision of pedestrian overpasses have been the
reduction in pedestrian/vehicle conflict, the size and layout of the overpass, visual
impact and, of course, the cost. The primary concerns of the pedestrians such as the
extra effort required to use the overpass or the increase in walking distance seems to
have received relatively low ranks during the evaluation and decision-making stages.
Some knowledge of the pedestrian needs may, therefore, be useful in refining the
designs of pedestrian facilities and more so in determining the appropriate layouts.
This paper examines the possible variables that may influence the factors considered
by pedestrians in selecting the links for intra-urban trips.
Obviously one could identify a multitude of factors that may seem to influence the
choice of route. Many of these factors, if closely examined would be interdependent.
Therefore, only a select group of factors chosen after a pilot survey are included in
the analysis. The sensitivity of these factors to changes in variables such as the
physical characteristics of the study area, personal characteristics of the trip makers
(i.e. age and gender), the type of trip and time of day are also examined.
147
 148 P. N. SENEVIRATNE AND J. F. MORRALL

The objective of this research, therefore, is to provide some information related to

pedestrian travel patterns which may be useful in formulating trip assignment
procedures, evaluating projects such as location of zebra (pedestrian) crossings,
pedestrian-only malls and location of transportation facilities. The findings suggest
that the individual preferences of the users can be easily incorporated into techniques
currently used for improving existing facilities or for the construction of new
facilities.

FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT
The behaviour of drivers with regard to route choice has been studied in great
detail.3'4'5 Although, some factors influencing the choice of drivers and pedestrians
are similar, due to some obvious, but yet subtle differences, inferences from these
studies can be rarely adopted for pedestrian facility design. The most significant
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

difference between driver route choice and pedestrian route choice is the number of
constraints or conversely the freedom of movement. On a trip between a given O-D
pair, a driver is confined to lanes and must move with other traffic in accordance with
the usual constraints such as speed limits, and passing, turning, stopping and parking
restrictions. On the other hand pedestrians can maintain direction, execute U-turns
and can stop to window-shop or browse as desired. Consequently, a pedestrian has
more alternative links, from which he or she is able to select one which satisfies most
individual needs.
For instance, consider A and B in Figure l(a) to be the O-D pair. Suppose routes
AQPSB (route 1) and AQRSB (route 2) are surface and AP'Q'B (route 3) is
an underpass. In most cases, one would select route 1 if pedestrian green is for the
north-south (N-S) movement, or AQRSB (route 2) if it was green for the east-west
(E-W) movement. (It is assumed here that there are vehicular movements in all
directions and no mid-block pedestrian crossings). Alternatively, one may select a
path independently of the direction of pedestrian green sign as long as he is prepared
to wait for the appropriate walk sign or has no preference for a surface route as
opposed to an underpass. A further example is the decision of choosing a route from
the set of alternatives AQPSJMB (route 1), AQRSJMP (route 2), AQRKJMB (route
3), AQRKLMB (route 4), and APQRSB (route 5) in Figure l(b).
Given similar alternatives to a driver, this choice of route will be based on several
additional factors such as availability of parking or the ease of turning manoeuvres.
The degree of freedom, therefore, clearly suggests that traffic engineering based
level of service principles for design and trip distribution techniques such as the
gravity model are not exactly appropriate for planning pedestrian facilities. They
have to be modified considerably to reflect pedestrian needs and the subtle differ-
ences in movement patterns of the two modes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The findings and recommendations of this paper are based on several pedestrian
surveys conducted in the central business district of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. At
the time of the study the CBD had a day time working population of approximately
80,000 and 9500 residents. A statistical summary of the CBD is given in Table I. The
study area covered almost 75 percent of the entire CBD.
 AP'Q'B s route 5
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

AQPSJMB [> route 1

AQPSB ___ route 1 AQRSJMB —>» — route 2
Q
AQRSB ____ route 2 AQRKJMB ._ route
t 3
AQRKJMB
AP'Q'B . route 3 AQRKLMB ...j>.. route

o
w
1
>
O
cn
o
O
o
m

FIGURE 1 Alternative links between A and B.

 150 P. N. SENEVIRATNE AND J. F. MORRALL

TABLE I
Downtown Calgary statistical overview: 1981

Employment 82,200
Residential population 9,500
Office space 19 m sq. ft.a
Roadway lanes into downtown 30
Downtown mainline bus routes 20
Downtown express bus routes 15
LRT routes to downtown 1
Long-term parking stalls 22,000
Short-term parking stalls 11,000
% of downtown area assigned for parking 14
% of area used by traffic lanes (right of way) 23
a
Figures from A. E. LePage Report on Calgary Office Space
Statistics, March 1982.
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

The pedestrian O-D survey that provided the data for the analysis was conducted
at the 32 locations shown in Figure 2. A total of 2900 persons were interviewed on
nine consecutive working days during the summer of 1982. The interviewers
intercepted pedestrians at random at mid-block, at entrances to buildings, at transit
stops and at shops to obtain responses to the questionnaire in Table II. Survey times
were 07:30-09:30, 10:00-11:30, 12:30-13:30, 14:30-15:30 and 16:00-17:00 hours.
These time periods allowed a mix of employees, visitors, shoppers and visitors for
business matters to be included in the sample, as well as providing adequate rest
periods for the interviewers within a seven hour working day. Late evening and
weekend trips had to be excluded due to lack of funds.
The public response was encouraging; 2685 questionnaires were available for
analysis. They were coded and analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social
Sciences (SPSS) on the University of Calgary computers.
The ten factors, Fx to F 10 included in the questionnaire were chosen after a pilot
survey of 50 persons. These ten factors could reasonably be assumed from the pilot
study to be the most frequently used and relevant. It was also necessary to keep the
questionnaire as brief as possible and also to refrain from ambiguity. For example,
pilot respondents were given both "shortest time" and "shortest distance" as choices
and over 80 percent selected shortest distance. Therefore, these two factors were
combined and redefined as quickest route in the final questionnaire and in the
analysis it was interpreted as shortest distance. This was felt to be a reasonable
assumption because walking requires physical effort. Unlike a driver who would not
feel the extra effort of driving 1 or 2 km farther to save a few minutes in journey time,
most pedestrians would prefer the waiting time to the additional walking.
The interview procedure amounted to asking the respondents to select the factor
that would best describe the reason for selecting the route they indicated in question
(4). Because the objective was to evaluate the primary concerns of the pedestrians
and also because the pilot survey revealed that there was no absolute correlation
between the secondary factors, it was decided to refrain from asking the respondents
to rank each factor affecting their choices in order of preference. However, choice
number 10 (F10) was included to allow for any uncommon answers or comments. The
main factors given by respondents for this were, uncertainty or lack of orientation
(lost).
The remaining questions in the questionnaire are self-explanatory, except ques-
tions (1) and (2), which were used for classifying the trip types.
 RETAIL CORE BOUNDARY

O 0-D SURVEY LOCATIONS

PEDESTRIAN ONLY MALL
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

IENT OF +15 NETWORK

1982 ADDITIONS TO THE +15 NETWORK

tn
I>
so
o

o
o
8

Rail Tracks
_~\~ 2_~ Z~Z l!_ ii _T 1 _J
li-
"II'
1—1

FIGURE 2 The study area within downtown Calgary.

 152 P. N. SENEVIRATNE AND J. F. MORRALL

TABLE II
O-D survey interview form

DOWNTOWN CALGARY 4) Could you please indicate the route walked,

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION STUDY
We are carrying out a survey on behalf of the City
of Calgary, to determine pedestrian movement
patterns in downtown Calgary. Would you please
help us by answering a few questions.
1) Where in downtown Calgary are you coming
from?
Bus stop
LRT Station
Parking lot
Place of work (office)
Business meeting
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014
between where you are coming from and
where you are going to, within downtown
Calgary.
(Indicate direction of travel by arrow).
5) How would you best describe your decision to
choose this path?
I always go that way
(i)
(ii) It is the only route available .
(iii) It is the quickest route .
(iv) It has the least number of streets to
cross F4
(v) It is the least crowded F5

(vi) It has more shops, stores, restaurants,

Shop etc.
Restaurant (vii) It offers most protection from the
Other (please specify)- weather F7
(viii) It has least noise/air pollution _ F8
(ix) It offers most personal security . F9
2) Where in downtown Calgary are you going to
now? (x) Other (please specify). — F,o
Bus stop 6) Sex
LRT Station . _ ^ Male_ . Female.
Parking lot
Place of work (office) 7) Age
Business meeting 15-30
Shop 30-50
Restaurant 50-60
Other 60+

3) What is the main purpose of your visit to 8) Time

downtown Calgary today?
Employed in downtown 9) Day of week (eg. Monday, Tuesday. . .)
Business
Shopping 10) Location of survey
Other 11) Weather

The analysis was performed by considering the number of persons in a variable

category using a particular criterion of route selection. For example, 1049 persons
were interviewed in the retail core of the study area, of whom 522 or 49.8 percent
chose the route because it was the quickest between their respective O-D pairs.
Thus, for this group, F 3 is defined as the most important or most commonly used
factor. Of this same 1049 persons, 256 or 24.4 percent chose their respective routes
because they always used it. Thus, Fx is the second most commonly used factor.
Similarly, each factor was assessed according to the number of persons in a category
selecting it. Therefore, in the final evaluation it is assumed that in the retail core F3 is
ranked number 1 and F t is ranked number 2.
The variables investigated here can be divided into three categories. That is, the
characteristics of the trip maker (respondent), characteristics of the trip purpose and
locational characteristics. The first two categories can be further subdivided thus:
Trip maker—into age, sex and purpose of visit; and
Trip characteristics—into trip type and time of day.
 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE CHOICE 153

Each of these categories and there relation to the process of route selection is
considered in the following sections. Prior to that, the behaviour of the overall
population sample in general is worth reviewing.
It is apparent that more than half of the population sample chose a particular route
because they felt it was quickest between the respective O-D pairs. The second most
commonly used factor was associated with habitual behaviour (F^. This group, which
accounted for 22 percent of the population sample chose the route simply because
they always used it (Fj). When the average walking distance is considered, however,
there appears to be no significant difference between those who select the shortest
path and those selecting the path because they always used it.
Attractions (i.e. the number of shops, restaurants and open spaces) or F 6 , and the
only available route (F2) were the prime factors among a far fewer number of people.
The significance of each factor for the population sample and the associated average
walking distances are shown in Table III. There were 369 persons who were unable to
provide any reason for selecting the path, while eight did not know the exact way to
their destinations and six were looking for employment. These respondents gave F10
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

as the factor affecting their route choice and are not considered in the final analysis.

Trip Maker Characteristics

(a) Sex The main factors influencing the choice of route are not much different
between the two sexes. In other words, a majority of both males and females selected
(F3) as the main factor, although the actual percentage of males selecting (F3) was
greater than females. Factors Fj and F 6 were the second and third most commonly used
factors respectively among men and women. F5 was the fifth most common factor
among men, while among women it was seventh. In order to determine whether
there is any degree of agreement among the rankings of men and women, Spear-
man's rank correlation test was performed. It shows that there is significant corre-
lation between the rankings at both one percent and five percent levels.

(b) Age Most people of all age groups considered the quickest route to be the main
factor they use when selecting a route. As with the sex of the respondents, the
proportion of persons selecting a route according to a given factor changed mar-
ginally between the four age groups, but the ranking of the factors within groups
remained more or less the same in all four. The only significant difference was found
in the ranking of F4 in the list. This factor was ranked fourth among the over 60 years
age group. In the other three groups, F2 was ranked fourth. This finding is an
indication of the obvious: that the elderly have problems in crossing streets. From a
previous question in the questionnaire, it became apparent that the major trip type of
this group is from transit stops to shops. Therefore, transit planning should take this
fact into consideration and provide safe access between transit terminals and
shopping areas.

(c) Purpose of trip The importance of a factor was found to vary substantially
depending on the purpose of one's visit to the downtown. For example, although F3
was the most common regardless of the purpose of the trip, F6 was ranked second
among the shoppers and "others". F6 was ranked third and fourth among the CBD
employees and business persons respectively. The "others" above is defined as the
group inclusive mainly of visitors to the downtown, those coming in for personal
matters, such as recreation or medical appointments, and transit transfer passengers.
 I—*
•u
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

TABLE III
Statistics related to factors influencing route choice of sample population r°
2!
Factor Most oo
Always Only Least Least Most Weather
Statistic use available Quickest crossings crowded attractions protection Noise Security Total a

I
(1)
#of
respondents selecting
given criterion as
I>
most important 582 102 1,362 42 23 167 12 11 2,685
(2) <-c
(1) as a % of
total sample 21.7 3.8 50.7 1.6 0.9 6.2 0.4 0.4 0.04 100
(3) O
Mean walking
distance (ft) 896 450-550 897 950-1,000 2,000-2,100 1,150-1,200 N/C N/C N/C 1,100
r
(N/C)—Not considered due to small size.
"Including respondents selecting on basis of Fw.
 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE CHOICE 155

They are only a small percentage, 4.1 percent of the population sample. The
Spearman's rank correlation test and the Kendall's r-test performed on these data
sets indicate a discordance in the rankings at the five percent level of significance.

Trip Characteristics
(a) Trip type A total of 31 trip types were considered in the main analysis. These
were defined according to the nature of the stop immediately prior to and immedi-
ately following the interview. The nature of the stop, in fact, means the type of land
use or activity at that location. Only some of the main trip types, such as work-related
trips, will be discussed in the paper.
For trips from bus stops to place of work, the most common factor (used by 46
percent of the persons) was F 3 , while 34 percent said it was Fx. From LRT stations to
work trips, 47 percent said that they selected the particular routes based on F3 and 33
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

percent had Fi as their basis. For the bus and LRT to work trips, seven percent and
two percent respectively said the factor was the lack of alternative routes or because
it was the only available route (F2).
On the contrary, a much higher proportion of business persons said that F3 was the
factor affecting their choice of route for trips from bus stops, LRT stations and
parking for business purposes, i.e. 78 percent, 74 percent and 74 percent respect-
ively. F5 was ranked three for trips from parking facilities to business trips.
The only trip type for which the quickest route (F3) was not the factor used by most
individuals is the shop-to-shop trip. Obviously, people select a route where there are
more shops if the final destination is a shop. If there was a particular shop or group of
shops in one's mind, then the individual may select the quickest route to reach them.
For the above trip type, 45 percent of the persons used the most attractive route,
while 25 percent used the quickest route as the most significant factor affecting their
choice of route.

(b) Time of day Attractions or F6 was ranked number three in the route selection
process during the morning, noon-hour and afternoon. These correspond to the time
periods, 10:00-10:30,12:30-13:30 and 14:30-15:30 hours. During the AM peak and
the PM peak, i.e. 07:30-09:00 and 16:00-17:00 hours, the attractiveness is ranked
number five and four respectively.
The reason for this is partly attributable to the trip type, as discussed above. For
instance, the majority of the trips during the peak periods are to work. The routes for
these trips were found to be most often chosen on the basis of the speed or quickness.
On the contrary, relatively more trips in the off-peak are for shopping or other such
activities. Most of these people obviously chose a path that has more shops,
restaurants or open spaces.

Physical Features
(a) Location within study area Usually, if the area under consideration is fairly
large, the spatial distribution of land-use is unlikely to be uniform. Although a fairly
small area was considered in Calgary, there was however wide variation in the
density of development within this section. Also, planning regulations have created a
form of segregation between commercial and business land-use. Consequently, it
was imperative that the views of respondents interviewed at these various locations
 156 P. N. SENEVIRATNE AND J. F. MORRALL

were considered separately to determine if any significant difference existed in the

walking patterns.
As shown in Figure 2, the study area is divided into two main sections—the retail
core and the office core. These two sections were further subdivided into Plus 15t
and at-grade, while the pedestrian only mall is treated as another independent
location. Figure 2 also shows the +15 network up to 1982 and, as one can clearly see,
although several buildings seem to be connected, the development of the overall
system has occurred in a rather haphazard manner.
The quickest route was the main factor of most people regardless of location.
Along the pedestrian mall and retail core +15, attractions (F6) was ranked number
two, while at other locations, Fi was ranked number two. Surprisingly, however, only
0.1 percent of the persons in the retail core +15 and no persons in the
office core +15 chose the path through the elevated enclosed walkway system due to
weather. One reason may be that the surveys were conducted in good warm weather
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

in the summer. A winter survey would have to be included in future projects to

compare the actual impact of weather on factors affecting route choice.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The variables considered in the preceding sections are summarized in Table IV. Each
factor is ranked according to the number of persons who considered it to be the most
significant factor affecting the choice of route. That is, for example, if eight of a total
often males in a sample considered F3 to be the most significant factor affecting their
route choice and two persons considered Fi to be the most significant factor, F 3 is
ranked number one and Fx is ranked number two. The range of scale is one to nine.
The factors not considered by anyone in the group is denoted as (—).
Although there was no significant difference in the mean walking distance between
those using Fx and F 3 , the former is ranked number two and three depending on the
variable considered. F 2 and F 6 received rankings ranging from two to five, with the
exception of shop-to-shop trips, where F6 is ranked number one.
The last three factors in the list, i.e. weather, noise and security, received very low
rankings or no rankings at all. This was especially true for security, with the highest
ranking being seven for the trips from bus to work. Crowded facilities or crossing of
busy streets did not seem to be a main factor among too many persons. Crowds (F5)
received a ranking of three from business persons going from parking facilities to
their places of business, and a ranking of four for parking to work trips.
According to the rankings of the overall sample population, F2 is ranked number
three. However, when different variables are considered, F6 appears to have been
ranked three in more occasions that F 2 . Thus, it may be reasonable to assume that F 6 is
ranked number three under most circumstances.

CONCLUSIONS
The most important element to be borne in mind when planning new facilities or
improving existing facilities is that people require to gain access to their final

† The term +15 is the name used for the above-ground pedestrian network. It stems from the fact that
the bridges connecting the system of walkways through buildings are 15 feet above ground level. Some are
connected at the +30 level as well.
 TABLE IV
Ranking of factors affecting route choice
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

Characteristics of trip maker Characteristics of trip Physical features

Sex Age Purpose of v isit Trip type Time of day Location

" ^ ^ ^ Variable

Overall sampl e populat

so
Route Selection ^ ^ 0
tn

Pedestrian ma
Parking to wo

Work to shop

STRIAN R
Criterion

Shop to shop
m

LRT to work
Bus to work

Bus to shop

Retail core

Retail +15
Noon hour

Office +15
to business

Office core
Downtown

Afternoon
restaurant
employee

AM peak
15-30 yrs

30-50 yrs

50-60 yrs

PM peak
Morning
Work to
Business
Females

Shopper
60+ yrs

Parking
person
>
Males

Other
Fi—Always use 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 o
3 3 3 3 O
F3—Quickest 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
F4—Least # of n
W
st. crossings 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 6 4 - 4 6 4 5 - 4 4 - 6 4 6 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 0
F5—Least crowded 6 5 7 6 6 5 - 6 5 - 5 6 5 4 3 3 - 5 - 4 6 5 - 6 6 6 - 5 5
o
3
F7—Most weather protection 7 7 6 7 7 6 7 6 6 _ _ _ _ 4 7 8 6 7 8 5 7
Fg—Least noise/air
pollution 8 6 8 8 8 6 - 8 7 - - 6 6 - - - - - - 7 8 67 7 7 6 5 - 6
F9—Most security 9 - 9 8 9 - - 9 - - - 7 8 9 _ _ _ -
% Using other criterion 14.2 15.5 13.0 9.9 16.1 23.5 14.0 13.1 22.5 11.2 19.3 10.4 12.6 11.5 12.5 12.1 12.3 17.2 7.3 12.2 16.2 15.8 16.3 10.9 13.6 8.4 6.4 34.4 14.2
Total # of respondents 2,685 1,319 1,366 1,050 1,370 221 43 2,077 293 206 104 625 261 131 160 58 81 204 55 566 650 493 447 524 1,049 227 91 131 1,186
% of total sample
population 100 49.1 50.9 39.1 51.0 8.2 1.6 77.4 10.9 7.7 4.1 23.3 9.7 4.9 6.0 2.2 3.0 7.6 2.0 21.1 21.1 18.5 18.5 16.6 39.1 8.5 3.4 4.9 44.2

(-)—no respondents in that category based their decision on that criterion.

•^1
 158 P. N. SENEVIRATNE AND J. F. MORRALL

destinations by the shortest routes. This is another significant difference between

pedestrian and vehicular traffic. When driving, people may select a faster route, even
if it is slightly longer than the shortest path between a particular O-D pair. However,
walking requires more physical effort and has greater manoeuverability and, hence,
pedestrians select the shortest link between an O-D pair. As for Calgary, these
findings can be extremely useful for the planning of the +15 network. It is, however,
not appropriate to make any definite conclusions without a winter survey, as
mentioned earlier. If no significant differences in the ranking of choices during the
summer and winter are found, the circuitous nature of the existing system may not
make it a viable and efficient alternative to the at-grade facilities. Consequently, a
system that connects each block in the downtown would be underutilized in most
parts, and is unwarranted. Under these circumstances, it would be more appropriate
from the point of view of both the users and the developers, to provide connections
only between the most compatible land-uses, as opposed to a city-wide network.
People also chose a route for no apparent reason, as shown by F10. This group had
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

an average walking distance of 950 feet (290 metres), which is not significantly
different at the 0.05 percent level of significance from the average on the quickest
route. Those who chose the route out of habit or because they always used it (F^, also
had a similar mean walking distance. This is an indication that even unintentionally,
people always minimize their walking distance.
Only a very small proportion of the population sample on special trips chose F 6 as
the factor affecting their route choice. Shoppers and visitors to a central area consist
of just over ten percent of the downtown pedestrians. This group obviously visits the
area for a special purpose and hence requires facility types slightly different to those
who are employed downtown. An indication for the planners in this case relates to
the concentration of similar activities or land-uses.
By confining the retail activities in the retail core, it enables the development of an
extensive +15 or +30 system, together with the right mix of open spaces and other
attractive features. On the other hand, direct links between bus stops, transit stops
and office buildings and connections between buildings would be-most beneficial to
workers in the office core. These links will not require the same level of attractions,
such as paintings, coloured sidewalks, benches and trees. Instead, proper location of
bus stops, optimum pedestrian green settings at intersections and proper signposting
are more appropriate.
A further important aspect that becomes evident form this analysis relates to the
quality or the level of service concept.6 This concept is the most commonly used in
pedestrian planning and is followed by many agencies. However, the rankings in
Table IV indicate that crowds (F5) on the sidewalks or the +15 system links is a
relatively insignificant factor, except among the less than one percent of the persons
walking from parking lots to business purposes. For example, on the shop-to-shop
trips, no persons based their decision on prevailing the level of congestion.
Crowds or (F5) in this instance may be regarded as a description of the flow or
density of pedestrians along a link. Therefore, if people are not too sensitive to
crowds, the level of service concept that is based primarily on pedestrian flow or
density could be an inappropriate design criterion. It does not imply that the concept
is redundant, or that density and flow should be completely ignored. The findings
simply emphasize the needs of the pedestrians in order of preference and indicate
that wider widewalks or uninterrupted flow is not the most important requirement of
pedestrians. This means that, for example, where capital or space is limited the
sidewalks could be built to the basic minimum size, with the option for future
expansion, if adequate space is available. The minimum width of 2.5 feet (0.75 m)
 PEDESTRIAN ROUTE CHOICE 159

could, therefore, be used as the required size for a pedestrian lane and it will prove a
capacity of approximately 60 persons/minute in one direction. If it is for two-
directional travel, the minimum width of sidewalk will have to be five feet (1.5 m).
However, where possible wider sidewalks are always preferred. These capacity
estimates are based on the flow rates in Ref. 6 and observations in Calgary.1
This approach to determining the size or width of a sidewalk has a further
advantage over the level of service approach. That is it has been shown that
pedestrian walking speed is not sensitive to rate of flow up to approximately 3/4 of
capacity flow is reached.7 Therefore, the decisions regarding expansions are straight-
forward. When flow exceeds 60 persons/minute, the perceived level of service
begins to deteriorate as a result of the flow approaching practical capacity and hence,
expansion would be justified.
Thus, the primary concern of the planners and engineers should be to provide most
direct and shortest paths between major attractors and generators. For example, if an
office building is located directly across the street from a midblock bus stop, ideally a
Downloaded by [University of York] at 08:31 20 August 2014

mid-block pedestrian crosswalk should be provided. Alternatively the bus stop could
be moved to the far side of the preceding intersection so that crossings will be done at
the intersection. However, if the bus stop is in a retail area and generate shoppers or
visitors, even if the trips have destinations across the street, the location of the stop
would not have a significant bearing on the users provided there are attractions on
both sides of the street. That is, the pedestrians would accept the additional walking
to the designated street crossings, because it will give them an opportunity to window
shop or browse.
By way of conclusion it could be suggested from the findings of this study that
planning and design of pedestrian facilities should pay particular attention to the
characteristics of the trip-maker and the trip-type. This way mistakes such as those
seen in open spaces of big cities where people walk across the nicely mowed grass
lawns and flower beds, because the foot paths are circuitous or jay walking can be
minimized. The planning efforts should also be a coordinated one with all relevant
authorities such as transit, city planning, transportation etc. This will resolve
conflicting objectives. Finally, however, it should be stressed that pedestrians should
be given priority over all other modes in central areas because one has to walk
wherever one goes.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of the City of Calgary Transportation Department
for the funding of the research project on which this paper is based.

REFERENCES
1. P. N. Seneviratne, "Pedestrian movement in central areas," Ph.D Thesis, Department of Civil
Engineering, University of Calgary (October 1983).
2. M. V. A. Bondala, "Intra-CBD secondary travel patterns of downtown workers," ASCE Transport-
ation Division (January 1982), pp. 15-26.
3. M. Vazari and T. N. Lam, "Perceived factors affecting driver route decisions," ASCE Transportation
Division (March 1983) pp. 297-311.
4. J. A. Benshoff, "Characteristics of drivers' route selection behaviour," Traffic Engineering and
Control (April 1970), pp. 606-609.
5. M. Wachs, "Relationship between drivers attitude toward alternative routes and drive and route
characteristics," Highway Research Record No. 197, 1967, pp. 70-87.
6. J. J. Fruin, "Pedestrian planning and design," New York Metropolitan Association of Urban
Designers and Environmental Planners (January 1971).
7. P. N. Seneviratne and J. F. Morrall, "Level of service on pedestrian facilities," Transportation
Quarterly, January 1985.