6 being the ‘highest’ or ‘highly satisfied’ was used.

To pair with the HCM pedestrian LOS score

range, instead of 1 to 6 it shows as ‘A’ (highly satisfied) to ‘F’ (not satisfied). Thus, the result of

the survey reflects the walkability condition of the segment based on pedestrians’ walking

experience.

Data Analysis and Technique

To evaluate sidewalk performance for pedestrians’ point of view. Different item needs to

be measure were used to evaluate the LOS. Each measure describes a different feature of the

pedestrian trip along the facility. For instance, LOS score is one measure that specifies the

pedestrian’s perception of the overall facility travel experience. The second measure is the average

speed of pedestrians while traveling along the facility. The third measure is the sidewalk width or

area for each pedestrian walking on the facility. The larger the sidewalk area is, the more desirable

it will be for pedestrians. The HCM provides a qualitative illustration of pedestrian space that can

be employed for sidewalk evaluation performance from a flow-area perspective.

According to the HCM, pedestrian perspective on street facility performance needs to be

separately calculated for each side of the sidewalk facilities. Hence, for this study, wherever a

facility LOS was needed for the sides of a street.

Step 1: Determine Pedestrian Space

The following equation is used to determine the pedestrian space for a facility:

Where:

Ap,F= pedestrian Space for the facility (ft2 /p),

Li = length of segment i (ft),

m = number of segments on the facility,

Ap,i = pedestrian space for segment i(ft2 /p).

Step2: Determine Pedestrian Travel Speed

Where:

STp,F= travel speed of through pedestrians for the facility (ft/s)

STp,seg,i= travel speed of through pedestrians for segment I (ft/s)

Step3: Determine Pedestrian Level of Service Score

Where :
Ip,F= pedestrian LOS score for the facility,

Ip,seg,i = pedestrian LOS score for segment i.

Step 4: Determine Pedestrian LOS

The pedestrian LOS for the facility is determined from the previous calculations, the average

pedestrian space from Step 1, and the pedestrian LOS score from Step 3. These two outcomes are

compared with their respective thresholds in Table 2 below to inference the LOS for the specific direction

of travel along the nominated sidewalk.

Table 1

LOS Criteria: Pedestrian Mode

LEVEL OF SERVICE FROM A-F

 REFERENCES

• Gacutan, A., & Tan, M.J. (2012, October 25). Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in

the University of the Philippines Diliman. Academia.

https://www.academia.edu/6328462/Level_of_Service_of_Pedestrian_Facilities

_in_the_University_of_the_Philippines_Diliman

• B. Raghuram Kadali and P. Vedagiri,(2016,JANUARY) “REVIEW OF PEDESTRIAN LEVELS

OF SERVICE”.RESEARCHGATE. (PDF) Review of Pedestrian Level of Service

(researchgate.net)

• Muraleetharan, T., Adachi, T., Hagiwara, T., Kagaya, S. (2005) “Method to determine

pedestrian level-of-service for crosswalks at urban intersections”, Journal of the Eastern

Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Vol. 6, pp. 127-136.

• Bierlaire, M., Hanseler, F. & Scarinci, R.(2015, October 8) “Assessing the usage and level-

ofservice of pedestrian facilities in train stations: A Swiss case study”. ScienceDirect.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096585641530119