Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman PDF

Preview

Summary

CE 199 – Undergraduate Research Project October 25, 2012 Summary of Final Manuscript Transportation Engineering Group Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman ANGEL U. GACUTAN MARIA JENNA M. TAN Undergraduate Students, B.S. Civil Engineering Program Inst...

Description

Accelerat ing t he world's research.

Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman Angel Gacutan

Related papers

Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

A Traffic Congest ion St udy of Unsignalized Int ersect ions along Yacapin- Borja-Osmeña St re… Jefferson Jr. Vallent e

New York Cit y Pedest rian Level of Service St udy Phase I amrat sagar St reet Space Sust ainabilit y in Asia: T he Role of t he Asian Pedest rian and St reet Cult ure Iderlina Mat eo-Babiano

CE 199 – Undergraduate Research Project Summary of Final Manuscript

October 25, 2012 Transportation Engineering Group

Level of Service of Pedestrian Facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman ANGEL U. GACUTAN MARIA JENNA M. TAN Undergraduate Students, B.S. Civil Engineering Program Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman E-mail: [email protected] Adviser: Engr. Hilario Sean Palmiano Associate Professor, Institute of Civil Engineering, University of the Philippines Diliman

Abstract. The University of the Philippines Diliman is a campus embodied by more than 40,000 students, employees, residents, and guests every day. Walking is one of the primary modes of transportation of people, particularly the students, in traveling from buildings to buildings, in order to attend their respective classes, work, and other businesses. This means that pedestrian facilities play a vital role inside the campus. This research evaluated these facilities through a proposed method that was developed by adapting various methodologies. The proposed method and design standards adapted and integrated mainly three different methods, namely Gloria P. Gerilla et.al.‘s ―Proposed Level of Service Standards for Walkways in Metro Manila‖, Linda Dixon‘s ―Gainsville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures‖, and Highway Capacity Manual LOS Standards. The methodology started with assigning respective weights or standard s cores to the several criteria that determine the level of service of the pedestrian facilities. These criteria, which were mainly based on Gerilla et. al.‘s method, are namely the Level of Congestion, Safety, Convenience, Comfort, Continuity, and System Coherence. Also based on Gerilla, the major criteria were assigned with respective subfactor/s characterizing them into further detail. The assigning of respective weights per sub-factor was in accordance to the pedestrians‘ preferences, which were determined through written surveys. In assessing each of the sub-factors, the proposed method adapted Dixon‘s system of scoring, wherein criteria per sub-factor were set, in order for a facility to gain particular number of points. The researchers went on field surveys in order to evaluate the present condition of the facilities and to score them based on the set of criteria. The evaluation of the Level of Congestion, one of the six major factors, was specifically in accordance to t he HCM standards. Various statistical methods were employed to calibrate the weighted factors and to come up with a table that assigns the LOS A to F rating with respective ranges of points. The LOS rating of each of the facilities was then obtained by summing up the points gained per sub-factor. The summation of points should have then been falling under one of the LOS ratings‘ range of scores. The study focused on the evaluation of the commonly used walkways, sidewalks, trails, and shoulders in the campus. The results showed that the LOS of selected pedestrian facilities inside the campus typically ranges from LOS B and LOS C. The facilities that did not meet the ideal standard of LOS A are recommended to be improved. Examples of areas for improvement include physical conditions like surface conditions, inadequate lighting, and others. In addition, the researchers recommend the general flow of the methodology utilized in this study, to be used by other transportation and urban planners in other places in the country. Furthermore, LOS assessment of other pedestrian facilities existing in the study area such as crosswalks, and the rest of the facilities that were not evaluated is suggested to be conducted, using the proposed standards.

1. Introduction

1.3 Significance of the Study

1.1 Background of the Study

The research determined which among the pedestrian facilities, particularly walkways, sidewalks, and trails, are well functioning, and which of these facilities need improvement. Areas for improvement were also identified, which can significantly help in planning future construction and in improving the existing facilities.

Walking is a very important mode of transportation in the University of the Philippines Diliman. This means that pedestrian walkway, sidewalks, and trails are vital structures in the campus that should be taken into consideration. Therefore, it is important to know if they really serve their purpose well. Are they good enough to provide service and convenience to the users, or do they still need improvement? What are the areas for improvement and how could they be improved? Which among the walkways are good enough and which are those that are poorly functioning? These mainly comprise the questions that the researchers aimed to address in their research about the Level of Service (LOS) of the pedestrian facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman. 1.2 Objectives The researchers aimed to evaluate the level of service of pedestrian facilities in the UP Diliman campus. This goal was broken down into two specific objectives:  To develop the appropriate tool for evaluating the pedestrian facilities in the UP Diliman Campus, and  To assess the level of service using the proposed Pedestrian Facilities Level of Service Standards

A general method of determining the LOS of pedestrian facilities was also proposed by the researchers. This design standard can be adapted by other researchers or urban planners in evaluating pedestrian facilities in other places in the country. 1.4 Scope and Limitations The researchers narrowed down the coverage of this study into the evaluation of walkways, sidewalks, shoulders, and trails. These four facilities are closely related, such that they exhibit almost the same form of facility. Therefore, the prepared set of criteria for these four types of facilities was essentially the same. Other limitations were with regards to the selection of the sample size for the initial survey part of the methodology. The population of the target sample size was narrowed down into number of students and employees working in UP Diliman.

1.5 Conceptual and Methodological Framework

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

Pedestrian facilities are an essential part of the bigger transportation system in an urban area, especially in UP Diliman. Evaluation of these facilities gives way to a better and more efficient transportation planning and management for future constructions or renovations.

2.1 Good Design of Pedestrian Facilities There are many factors to be considered in order to come up with a good design of pedestrian facilities. Good design essentially means a design that gives a satisfactory service to its users. Listed below are the different factors that shall be taken into consideration in designing or evaluating pedestrian facilities, particularly sidewalks, shoulders, trails, and walkways.  Cross Slopes  Grades  Eliminating Barriers and Obstacles  Effective Sidewalk Width  Lighting  Passing and Resting Areas  Sidewalk Curb and Ramps  Street Separation and Edge Treatments such as Planting Buffers  Signing and Other Communication Aids  Site Connections  Textural and Visual Cues  Surfacing  Vertical Clearance

Pedestrian facilities in Transportation engineering is a general term for various facilities used by pedestrians. Examples are sidewalks, walkways, trails, crosswalks, bridges, etc. They provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The proposed methodology adapted and integrated mainly three different methods, namely, Gloria P. Gerilla et.al.‘s ―Proposed Level of Service Standards for Walkways in Metro Manila‖, Linda Dixon‘s ―Gainsville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures‖, and Highway Capacity Manual Method. Figure 1 shows how the proposed methodology integrated the different adapted methodologies. Each of the major criteria was broken down into their subfactors so that assessment will be in terms of these subfactors. This is because the major criteria are very general and they could be assessed more objectively by being broken down into more specific factors. Figure 2 shows the six major criteria and their respective sub-factors.

Gerilla et.al.‘s Proposed Level of Servcie Standards for Walkways in Metro Manila

There are a number of published methodologies in evaluating pedestrian facilities. This review focuses on the three comparatively most applicable approaches that were employed and adapted to design the proposed Pedestrian Level of Service standards.

Evaluation based on factors ranked in accoradance to the preference of the pedestrian users

2.2.1 Highway Capacity Manual Method for Determining Pedestrian LOS

GACUTAN & TAN'S PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

Safety

Convenience

Subfactors will be scored similar to Linda Dixon’s Method

2.2 Different Proposed Methods in Evaluating Pedestrian Facilities

Subfactors will be scored similar to Linda Dixon’s Method

Comfort

Subfactors will be scored similar to Linda Dixon’s Method

System Coherence

Subfactors will be scored similar to Linda Dixon’s Method

Continuity

Subfactors will be scored similar to Linda Dixon’s Method

Level of Congestion To be evaluated using Highway Capacity Manual Method and scored similar to Dixon's

Figure 1. Methodological Framework

The HCM method for analyzing pedestrian LOS is based on the measurement of pedestrian flow rate and sidewalk space. Assessment of the sidewalk level of service based on HCM uses the counting of pedestrians per minute per meter (ped/min/m) as the basis for LOS classification (New York State Department of Transportation, 2006). Table 1 shows the HCM Standards including the service measure of space and the supplementary standards of unit flow rate, speed, and v/c ratio. Table 1. HCM Level of Service Criteria for Walkways and Sidewalks

A

Space (m2/ped) > 5.6

Flow Rate (ped/min/m) ≤ 16

Speed (m/s) > 1.30

B

> 3.7 - 5.6

> 16 - 23

> 1.27 - 1.30

> 0.21 - 0.31

C

> 2.2 - 3.7

> 23 - 33

> 1.22 - 1.27

> 0.31 - 0.44

D

> 1.4 - 2.2

> 33 - 49

> 1.14 - 1.22

> 0.44 - 0.65

E

> 0.75 - 1.4

> 49 - 75

> 0.75 - 1.14

> 0.65 - 1.00

F

≤ 0.75

variable

≤ 0.75

Variable

LOS

v/c Ratio ≤ 0.21

2.1.2 Proposed Level of Service Standards for Walkways in Metro Manila Figure 2. Major Criteria and Sub-Factors for Evaluating Pedestrian Facilities

Gerilla, Hokao, and Takeyama (1995) proposed a method for evaluating pedestrian LOS in the Central Business 2

Districts (CBD) in Makati, Metro Manila. Table 2 shows their proposed Pedestrian LOS Design Standards. In their data collection, Gerilla et. al. used Photographic Technique Survey, Pedestrian Behavior Questionnaire Survey, and Pedestrian Preference Facility Survey. They evaluated the facilities based on six factors namely safety, convenience, comfort, continuity, system coherence, level of congestion.

The two main factors from which Dixon based the evaluation are the pedestrian safety and level of automobileoriented development characteristics along the corridor. Table 4. Pedestrian LOS Ratings (Dixon, 1996) LOS Rating LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F

Points > 17 > 14 – 17 > 11 – 14 > 7 – 11 >3–7 3 or less

Table 2. Proposed LOS Standards by Gerilla et.al. DESCRIPTIONS Average Flow (ped/m/min) Ave. Pedestrian Area Occupancy (m2/ped) Presence of Information Signs Width of the Facility Lighting in the Walking Area Air Quality Presence of Guards Surface Condition of the Facility Pedestrian-Car Conflict Presence of Trees or Shrubs Presence of Furniture Availability of Pedestrian Signal Presence of Guardrails or Fencing

LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F 23 > 3.25           

23 - 34 34 - 42 42 - 51 51 - 76 2.05 3.25 

1.65 2.05 

1.25 1.65 

0.56 1.25 

    

    

 

 







76 or variable < 0.56 



  

They broke down the six factors into sub-factors, and after integrating the results of the survey, they have come up with their proposed Pedestrian Level of Service standards as previously shown in Table 2. Note that they assigned respective weights to the factors based on the preference of users, which was obtained through the surveys conducted. 2.2.3 Gainesville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures

3. METHODOLOGY The study area of this research is the University of the Philippines Diliman. The methodology was divided into two main parts — (1) Development of appropriate tool for evaluating the level of service of the pedestrian facilities in the University of the Philippines Diliman, and (2) Evaluation of selected pedestrian facilities. For the first part, the researchers designed the most suitable Pedestrian Facilities Level of Service standard primarily for the said university, through adaptation and modification of previous parallel studies in evaluating these facilities. Several field surveys were conducted to calibrate the proposed standard. In addition, from these field surveys the researchers were able to identify the preferences of the pedestrian users concerning what criteria or conditions a facility must have. For the latter part of the methodology, since pedestrian facilities cover a wide range of topics, the researchers narrowed down the scope of study into the most commonly used pedestrian facilities (specifically sidewalks, trails, and walkways) in the study area.. The following table (Table 5) shows the list of all the survey activities for data collection.

In this method, Dixon used a pointing system as shown in Table 3. The sum of the assigned points has a corresponding LOS rating. The respective LOS ratings‘ ranges of scores are shown in Table 4. LOS ratings were said to be directly relative to the level of encouragement given for the use of the pedestrian facility.

The Survey No. 3 and No. 4 were performed for the assessment of one particular sub-factor, namely Level of Congestion, in accordance with the HCM standards.

Table 3. Pedestrian Level-of-Service (Dixon, 1996)

Table 5. Survey Activities for Data Gathering

CATEGORY PEDESTRIAN FACILITY Maximum Value = 10

CONFLICTS Maximum Value = 10

AMENITIES Maximum Value = 2 MOTOR VEHICLE LOS Maximum Value = 2 MAINTENANCE Maximum Value = 2 TDM / MULTI MODAL Maximum Value = 1

CRITERIA Not continuous or non-existent Continuous on one side Continuous on both sides Minimum 1.53 m (5') wide & barrier free Sidewalk width > 1.53 (5') Off-sheet parallel alternative facility Driveway & side streets Pedestrian Signal delay 40 sec. or less Reduced turn conflict implementation Crossing width 18.3 m (60') or less Posted Speed Medians Present Buffer not less than 1 m (3'5") Benches or pedestrian scale lighting Shade trees LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes Major or frequent problems Minor or infrequent Problems No Problems No Support Support exists

POINTS

0 4 6 2 1 1 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 1 -2 -1 0 2 0 1

The following flowchart (Figure 3) shows a summary of the methodology of this research study.

ACTIVITIES (1) Development of appropriate tool for evaluating the Pedestrian Level of Service in the University of the Philippines Diliman Survey No. 1 Factors in Evaluating Pedestrian Facilities (2) Evaluation of Selected Pedestrian Facilities Survey No. 2 Determination of Commonly Used Route Sections in UP Diliman Survey No. 3 Determination of Peak Hours Survey No. 4 Pedestrian Count in Selected Route Sections Survey No. 5 Assessment of the Selected Pedestrian Facilities

3

CONVENIENCE

COMFORT

CONTINUITY

SYSTEM COHERENCE

LEVEL OF CONGESTION

Presence of guardrails/ fencing Marking separation between street and sidewalk Height difference between street and sidewalk Lighting in the walking area Availability of pedestrian signal Width of the facility Surface condition of the facility Presence of shops Air Quality Presence of trees or shrubs Noise quality Pedestrian-Car conflict Presence of street furniture Presence of vendors Presence of information signs Eyepoint or landmark Perception of space HCM Level of Service from A to F

Figure 3. Summary of Research Methodology 3.1.3 Gainesville Pedestrian LOS Performance Measures 3.1 Development of Appropriate Tool for Evaluating the Pedestrian Level of Service in the University of the Philippines Diliman In this section, the three primary methods adapted will be thoroughly discussed and assessed based on their strengths and weaknesses, as well as the certain approaches of their studies that the researchers have adapted. 3.1.1 Highway Capacity Manual Method for Determining Pedestrian LOS The advantage of this standard is that there is no subjectivity in the analysis since it quantitatively assesses pedestrian facilities, through measuring the level of congestion. But pedestrians‘ preferences were not considered. And these are essential in designing such facilities since users are very vulnerable and sensitive with the conditions of their environment. For this reason, the researchers also adapted other methodologies that consider other important factors to evaluate the pedestrian facilities. 3.1.2 Proposed Level of Service Standards for Walkways in Metro Manila The researchers adapted their six major criteria in evaluating the pedestrian facilities, which are namely safety, convenience, comfort, continuity, system coherence, and level of congestion. Under these criteria are their sub-factors that describe each major factor in further detail. The distribution of these sub-factors is listed in Table 6. Modifications were done in order to make all the sub-factors applicable to the study area. Gerilla‘s standards are not totally applicable since they considered a different kind of setting(i.e. business district) and different type of users. In addition to why the researchers did not entirely utilize Gerilla et. al‘s proposed method is that based on their final evaluation standards (please refer to Table 2), they were not able to present an accurate way of arriving at the final LOS rating of a facility. Table 6. Sub-factors of the Six Major Criteria of Gerilla’s Proposed LOS Standards CRITERIA SAFETY

SUB-FACTORS Presence of guards

Singh and Jain‘s (2011) review about this approach was that it is simple and easy to apply but the criteria points were arbitrarily chosen. Also, intermediate conditions were not considered in the scoring. The researchers adapted Dixon‘s idea of assigning criteria per number of points to the sub-factors, then setting a range of values per LOS grade. However, the researchers used various set of factors, generally based from th...