Module 8 : Specialized Traffic Studies
Lecture 47 : Pedestrian Studies
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
 

Level of Services

The HCM uses pedestrian space as primary measure of effectiveness, with mean speed and flow rate as secondary measures. Provision of adequate space for both moving and queuing pedestrian flow is necessary to ensure a good LOS. Alternatively LOS considered as pedestrian comfort, convenience, perception of safety and security. Alternative LOS measurements consider specific constraints to pedestrian flow such as stairway and wait time to cross roadways. We are going to discuss LOS of walkways, LOS of queuing and LOS at signalized intersection below.

Pedestrian Walkway LOS

LOS A

Pedestrian Space $ > 5.6$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate $ \leq 16$ p/min/m. At a walkway LOS A, pedestrians move in desired paths without altering their movements in response to other pedestrians. Walking speeds are freely selected, and conflicts between pedestrians are unlikely. It is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: LOS A
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosA.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}

LOS B

Pedestrian Space $ > 3.7-5.6$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate $ > 16-23$ p/min/m. At LOS B, there is sufficient area for pedestrians to select walking speeds freely, to bypass other pedestrians, and to avoid crossing conflicts. At this level, pedestrians begin to be aware of other pedestrians, and to respond to their presence when selecting a walking path. It is shown in Fig. 2.
Figure 2: LOS B
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosB.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}

LOS C

Pedestrian Space $ > 2.2-3.7$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate $ > 23-33$ p/min/m. At LOS C, space is sufficient for normal walking speeds, and for bypassing other pedestrians in primarily unidirectional streams. Reverse-direction or crossing movements can cause minor conflicts, and speeds and flow rate are somewhat lower. It is shown in Fig. 3.
Figure 3: LOS C
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosC.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}

LOS D

Pedestrian Space $ > 1.4-2.2$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate $ > 33-49$ p/min/m. At LOS D, freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other pedestrians is restricted. Crossing or reverse flow movements face a high probability of conflict, requiring frequent changes in speed and position. The LOS provides reasonably fluid flow, but friction and interaction between pedestrians is likely. It is shown in Fig. 4.
Figure 4: LOS D
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosD.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}

LOS E

Pedestrian Space $ > 0.75-1.4$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate $ > 49-75$ p/min/m. At LOS E, virtually all pedestrians restrict their normal walking speed, frequently adjusting their gait. At the lower range, forward movement is possible only by shuffling. Space is not sufficient for passing slower pedestrians. Cross- or reverse-flow movements are possible only with extreme difficulties. Design volumes approach the limit of walkway capacity, with stoppages and interruptions to flow. It is shown in Fig. 5.
Figure 5: LOS E
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosE.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}

LOS F

Pedestrian Space $ \leq 0.75$ $ m^2$/p Flow Rate varies p/min/m. At LOS F, all walking speeds are severely restricted, and forward progress is made only by shuffling. There is frequent, unavoidable contact with other pedestrians. Cross- and reverse-flow movements are virtually impossible. Flow is sporadic and unstable. Space is more characteristic of queued pedestrians than of moving pedestrian streams. It is shown in Fig. 6.
Figure 6: LOS F
\begin{figure} \centerline{\epsfig{file=qfPedLosF.eps,width=8 cm}} \end{figure}