Austroads Research Report: Guide Information For Pedestrian Facilities

AP-R423-13
AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT
Guide Information for Pedestrian

Facilities
Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities
Published February 2013
© Austroads Ltd 2013
This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968,
no part may be reproduced by any process without the prior written permission of Austroads.
ISBN 978-1-921991-58-5
Austroads Project No. NT1523
Austroads Publication No. AP–R423-13
Project Manager
Bob O’Keefe – Roads and Maritime Services NSW
Prepared by
Peter Croft, Noha Elazar, Michael Levasseur
ARRB Group
Published by Austroads Ltd

Level 9, Robell House
287 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000 Australia
Phone: +61 2 9264 7088
Fax: +61 2 9264 1657
Email: austroads@austroads.com.au
www.austroads.com.au
Austroads believes this publication to be correct at the time of printing and does not accept
responsibility for any consequences arising from the use of information herein. Readers should
rely on their own skill and judgement to apply information to particular issues.
Sydney 2013
About Austroads
Austroads’ purpose is to:
 promote improved Australian and New Zealand transport outcomes
 provide expert technical input to national policy development on road and road transport
issues
 promote improved practice and capability by road agencies.
 promote consistency in road and road agency operations.
Austroads membership comprises the six state and two territory road transport and traffic
authorities, the Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport, the Australian Local
Government Association, and NZ Transport Agency. Austroads is governed by a Board consisting
of the chief executive officer (or an alternative senior executive officer) of each of its eleven
member organisations:
 Roads and Maritime Services New South Wales
 Roads Corporation Victoria
 Department of Transport and Main Roads Queensland
 Main Roads Western Australia
 Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure South Australia
 Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources Tasmania
 Department of Transport Northern Territory
 Department of Territory and Municipal Services Australian Capital Territory
 Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure and Transport
 Australian Local Government Association
 New Zealand Transport Agency.
The success of Austroads is derived from the collaboration of member organisations and others in
the road industry. It aims to be the Australasian leader in providing high quality information, advice
and fostering research in the road transport sector.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Project Approach .................................................................................................................. 1
1.2.1 Scope ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2.2 Tasks ....................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Background........................................................................................................................... 2
1.3.1 Walking and Health .................................................................................................. 2
1.3.2 Pedestrian Safety ..................................................................................................... 3
2 GUIDANCE ON PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES ........................................................................ 5
2.1 Australia and New Zealand ................................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Austroads Guidance................................................................................................. 5
2.1.2 Guide to Traffic Management ................................................................................... 7
2.1.3 Guide to Road Design .............................................................................................. 9
2.1.4 Guide to Road Safety ............................................................................................. 11
2.1.5 Guide to Road Transport Planning ......................................................................... 11
2.1.6 Australian Standards .............................................................................................. 11
2.1.7 New Zealand Guidance .......................................................................................... 12
2.1.8 Developments in Australia ...................................................................................... 17
2.1.9 Pedestrian Facility Trials ........................................................................................ 19
2.2 International Guidance ........................................................................................................ 19
2.2.1 Walk21 Movement ................................................................................................. 19
2.2.2 Pedestrian Needs Study......................................................................................... 20
2.2.3 PUSH Project ......................................................................................................... 21
2.2.4 AASHTO Pedestrian Facilities Guide ..................................................................... 21
2.2.5 Pedestrian Safety Manual ...................................................................................... 21
2.2.6 UK Guides.............................................................................................................. 22
3 GUIDANCE ON LEVEL OF SERVICE................................................................................ 23
3.1 Definition ............................................................................................................................. 23
3.2 LoS Guidance in GTM ........................................................................................................ 23
3.3 Highway Capacity Manual 2000 .......................................................................................... 24
3.3.1 Pedestrian Flow ..................................................................................................... 24
3.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities LoS ........................................................................................ 25
3.4 Highway Capacity Manual 2010 .......................................................................................... 26
3.4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................ 26
3.4.2 Determining Level of Service.................................................................................. 27
3.5 Local Guidelines ................................................................................................................. 28
3.5.1 New Zealand .......................................................................................................... 28
3.5.2 Queensland............................................................................................................ 29
3.5.3 Victoria ................................................................................................................... 30
3.6 Implications for Austroads Guides....................................................................................... 31
4 LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 32
4.1 Scope ................................................................................................................................. 32
4.2 Sources .............................................................................................................................. 32
4.3 Pedestrian Activity .............................................................................................................. 33
4.3.1 Defining and Measuring Walking ............................................................................ 33
Austroads 2012
— i—
4.4 Pedestrian Perceptions of Facilities .................................................................................... 34

4.4.1 Crossing Facilities .................................................................................................. 34
4.4.2 Signalised Intersections ......................................................................................... 36
4.4.3 Safety for Different Crossings................................................................................. 37
4.4.4 Roundabouts .......................................................................................................... 38
4.4.5 Route Choice ......................................................................................................... 39
4.4.6 Walking for Pleasure .............................................................................................. 41
4.4.7 Effects of Weather.................................................................................................. 41
4.4.8 Pedestrians with Disabilities ................................................................................... 42
4.5 Level of Service for Pedestrians.......................................................................................... 43
4.5.1 Addressing Pedestrian Needs ................................................................................ 43
4.5.2 Multimodal Approach.............................................................................................. 44
4.5.3 Tools, Evaluation and Assessment......................................................................... 48
4.6 Summary ............................................................................................................................ 50
5 REVISED GUIDANCE ........................................................................................................ 51
5.1 Areas of Need ..................................................................................................................... 51
5.2 Amendments to Documents ................................................................................................ 51
5.2.1 Approach................................................................................................................ 51
5.2.2 Proposed Revised Material .................................................................................... 52
6 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................... 55
6.1 Considerations for Development of a Tool .......................................................................... 55
6.2 Development of an Assessment Tool .................................................................................. 55
7 CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................... 57
7.1 Enhanced Guidance ........................................................................................................... 57
7.2 Assessment Tool ................................................................................................................ 57
7.3 Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 57
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 58
APPENDIX A MAPPING OF GTEP 13 MATERIAL INTO AUSTROADS GUIDES ......... 64
APPENDIX B DIRECTORY TO PEDESTRIAN ISSUES IN GUIDE TO TRAFFIC
MANAGEMENT ....................................................................................... 68
APPENDIX C PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ..... 71
APPENDIX D PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO ROAD DESIGN...................... 81
APPENDIX E PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO ROAD SAFETY ..................... 84
APPENDIX F PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO ROAD TRANSPORT
PLANNING............................................................................................... 86
Austroads 2012
— ii —
TABLES
Table 2.1: GTEP 13 material not directly identified in Austroads Guides ................................... 5
Table 2.2: General pedestrian topics in Austroads Guides ........................................................ 6
Table 2.3: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Design .................................. 10
Table 2.4: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Safety ................................... 11
Table 2.5: Pedestrian matters covered in Australian Standards .............................................. 12
Table 2.6: Comparison of content – NZ Guide vs Austroads Guides....................................... 13
Table 2.7: Developments in Australia regarding walking strategy............................................ 18
Table 3.1: Level of Service definitions ..................................................................................... 23
Table 3.2: Key terminology for pedestrian flow........................................................................ 24
Table 3.3: Pedestrian levels of service on a walkway.............................................................. 25
Table 3.4: Pedestrian LoS information in HCM 2010............................................................... 27
Table 3.5: Pedestrian Level of Service for uninterrupted traffic flows ...................................... 30
Table 3.6: Level of Service for pedestrians ............................................................................. 30
Table 5.1: Requirements for areas of guidance....................................................................... 51
Table 5.2: Sections of Guides for enhanced pedestrian guidance ........................................... 53
FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Probability of death to pedestrian in a collision with a motor vehicle ......................... 4
Figure 3.1: Mean delay for various crossing facilities on a two-lane, two-way urban
road (uninterrupted flow) ........................................................................................ 29
Austroads 2012
— iii —
SUMMARY
The purpose of this project was to identify from overseas and local research and practice new
information on the provision of pedestrian facilities that should be incorporated into the current
Guide to Traffic Management. The project did not include the development of detailed procedures
for the selection of particular pedestrian facilities but the report outlines the general approach that
should be adopted as an alternative to reliance upon traditional numerical criteria.
The need for provision and assessment of facilities for pedestrians has not been well-recognised
until recent years. As a result there is an emerging need to cater for pedestrians in transport
planning and traffic management in Australia and New Zealand to a greater extent than previously.
For the development of walking strategies, associated guidance documents are required.
The main features identified from the review of literature, emerging practice and recent guideline
developments are summarised as follows:
 greater recognition of the importance of walking, from health, social, environmental, transport
and economic perspectives
 greater emphasis in road network planning and urban design on providing facilities for
pedestrian activity
 enhanced understanding of walking activity, not just as a transport mode, and the need to
reflect this in associated measurement and survey techniques
 acknowledgement of the need for guidance on pedestrian facilities which takes into account
the needs and perceptions of pedestrians themselves
 development of tools and techniques for assessing the quality of the walking environment,
which lead to improved methods for determining the level of service and facilities provided to
pedestrians in the road environment
 development of a multimodal approach – considering pedestrian, cyclist and public transport
issues in addition to vehicular traffic – for assessing the level of service of roadway facilities.
The material on pedestrian facilities in the Austroads Guides would be enhanced by including a
greater emphasis on accommodating pedestrian activity in planning and design, emphasising the
vulnerability of pedestrians in the Safe System context, presenting the basics of pedestrian level of
service, and outlining methods for assessing walkability.
The primary need is for amendment to the Guide to Traffic Management, taking into account the
pedestrian mode in determining the level of service of roadway facilities. Greater attention needs
to be paid to pedestrian activity needs and perceptions in assessing the quality of their
environment, and the consequences for selecting and managing related facilities. Appendices to
this report contain the additional or revised text that is proposed for insertion into the relevant
sections of Guides.
The need to develop a comprehensive tool for the assessment and evaluation of pedestrian
facilities, applicable to Australia and New Zealand, has been identified. The features and proposed
development of such a tool, based on walkability, level of service and safety considerations, have
been outlined.
Austroads 2012
— iv —
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Objectives
Most transport trips involve walking at the start and end of trips. The need for provision and
assessment of facilities for pedestrians has not been well-recognised until recent years. As a
result there is an emerging need to cater for pedestrians in transport planning and traffic
management in Australia and New Zealand to a greater extent than previously. For the
development of walking strategies associated guidance documents are required.
The superseded publication Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13: Pedestrians
(referred to here as GTEP 13) was produced in 1995 to summarise current practice amongst road
agencies in addressing this need. Some material from GTEP Part 13 has been incorporated in the
new Austroads Guide to Traffic Management (GTM) and Guide to Road Design (GRD). This
material requires review and revision, particularly with regard to the inclusion of Level of Service
concepts for pedestrian facilities available from the revised US Highway Capacity Manual.
The purpose of the project is to identify from international and local research and practice new
material on the provision of pedestrian facilities that should be incorporated into the current
Austroads Guides, particularly the Guide to Traffic Management. Such enhanced guidance will be
important in developing and promoting the use of an integrated and multi-modal transport system.
The project does not include the development of detailed procedures for the selection of particular
pedestrian facilities (walkways, footpaths, crossings, refuges, signals, etc.) but does outline the
general approach that should be adopted as an alternative to reliance upon traditional numerical
criteria. It is intended that the detailed procedures will be developed in association with the further
review of specific Parts of the GTM in future.
1.2 Project Approach

1.2.1 Scope
The project includes recommendations for additional or amended text to be incorporated into the
GTM to better reflect contemporary guidance on pedestrian facilities. Cyclist facilities are not
included as they are dealt with in separate projects, but reference is made as required to shared
pedestrian-cycle path facilities. A report detailing the information in Austroads Guides on the
planning, design and traffic management of cyclist facilities is available (Austroads 2010).
The emphasis is on developing replacement text for GTM Part 3, and for Parts 6 and 9, which are
under review in separate Austroads projects:
 NP1695 – Review of GTM Part 3: Traffic Studies and Analysis
 NP1676 – Review of GTM Part 6: Intersections, Interchanges and Crossings, and Part 9:
Traffic Operations.
Amendments that could be included in future reviews of other Parts of the GTM are outlined.
Implications for other Austroads Guides, particularly the Guide to Road Design (GRD), the Guide
to Road Safety (GRS) and the Guide to Road Transport Planning (GRTP) are also identified.
Austroads 2012
— 1—
1.2.2 Tasks
This project comprised a literature review and the development of proposals for amendments to
the Guides. The following tasks were undertaken and the results are presented in this report:
 review of material in the former GTEP Part 13 to determine the extent of its capture in the
guides
 review of literature (including the US Highway Capacity Manual and NZ Pedestrian Planning
& Design Guide) and processes used to select and assess appropriate pedestrian facilities
 review of the GTM to identify possible amendments to incorporate the level of service (LoS)
concept for pedestrians
 review of the relevant Guides to identify amendments regarding pedestrian facilities
 consultation with jurisdictions, via workshop activity with relevant road transport and planning
authorities to determine how new developments could be, or are being, incorporated into
their current policies and practices, and to identify any jurisdiction-specific factors
 development of recommendations for necessary amendments to the Guides.
1.3 Background
There is a need to reflect new perspectives in guidelines for pedestrian facilities. Traditionally, the
approach to consideration of pedestrian activity and the provision or assessment of facilities for
walking has been very vehicle-centric. The translation to pedestrian traffic of concepts and
measurement of vehicular traffic flow is questionable as there are many other factors at play.
A new focus has emerged in best practice advice on transport planning and traffic management,
based on reviews and studies of pedestrian issues. This has led to development of initiatives and
guidance in many jurisdictions specifically on the provision and management of pedestrian
facilities. Pedestrian activity and safety is increasingly reflected in guidelines and standards for
road design, traffic management and road transport planning.
1.3.1 Walking and Health

There has been considerable work done internationally, particularly in developed countries, aimed
at understanding, measuring and providing for walking generally, in the context of health, social,
economic, environmental and transport perspectives. Examples of global initiatives are:
 the Walk 21 Conference movement, which provides an international forum for the discussion
and development of measures to address walking issues
 development of the International Charter for Walking, which provides a pedestrian focus for
cities and countries in the planning and development of their infrastructure
 the European Pedestrian Quality Needs (PQN) project addressing a comprehensive range of
issues related to walking and the walking environment
 the OECD project on Pedestrian safety, Urban Space and Health (PUSH) addressing the
importance of walking as an integral part of the transport system and the need for policies to
promote walking in planning.
In Australia, the Heart Foundation Australia has developed a guide from a health perspective,
Healthy by design: a planner’s guide to environments for active living (Sutherland, Murphy &
Carlisle 2006). This guide was developed in response to local government requests for practical
guidance in designing walkable and more liveable communities. Local governments are utilising
Austroads 2012
— 2—
the guide to increase the priority on walking in the municipality and to support the development of a
municipal walking strategy.
Also at a national level, planning and health authorities and institutions have addressed the need to
plan for more sustainable communities, with a particular emphasis on the benefits to people’s
physical and mental health from active or healthy living. A guide Healthy Spaces and Places has
been produced (Planning Institute of Australia 2009) to help understand and respond to issues
around planning and health. It highlights the importance of planning and designing communities
for people movements, not just car movements, and provides tools for doing this. It supports and
complements planning and design initiatives of state, territory and local governments.
Further information on the Heart Foundation’s state-based collaborations for developing physical
activity initiatives and improving the physical and social environment is available at
www.heartfoundation.org.au/active-living/coalitions/Pages/default.aspx.
Such developments reflect a shift from primarily planning for roads (private car oriented policy)
towards planning more for other modes such as public transport and non-motorised modes. This
shift in transport planning policy includes influencing people’s attitudes towards travel, and
encouraging the use of alternatives to the private car. A useful resource in this area is the on-line
TDM Encyclopedia developed in Canada (VTPI 2010). Based on information and resources from
across the globe, this material provides advice on the many aspects of transportation demand
management and argues for a comprehensive approach to transport planning. It includes chapters
on non-motorised transport planning, walking and cycling encouragement, and managing non-
motorised facilities.
Road and planning authorities in Australia and New Zealand are also developing policies,
strategies and guidelines giving greater recognition to the importance of walking as an activity and
as a transport mode. These are discussed in the main body of this report (see Section 2.1.8).
1.3.2 Pedestrian Safety

Improving the information on pedestrian facilities in the guidance documents is in line with the Safe
System approach to road safety, which recognises the vulnerability of pedestrians in the road
environment.
The Safe System approach was first adopted in the National Road Safety Action Plan in 2005 and
reiterated in the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020 (ATC 2011). This approach is the
guiding principle to managing and improving road safety and underpins the national road safety
strategies in Australia and New Zealand. The approach aims to provide a safer road and traffic
environment in which alert and responsible road users should not be killed or seriously injured as a
result of a crash. It is structured around the basic pillars of safer roads, safer speeds, safer
vehicles, and safer road users.
Safety is a prime objective in traffic management, and pedestrians are particularly vulnerable to
serious injury. In a vehicle-pedestrian collision, the probability of survival for the pedestrian
decreases dramatically at impact speeds above about 30 km/h (Figure 1.1). Results from
on-scene investigations of collisions involving pedestrians and cars show that about 90% of
pedestrians survive being hit by a car at speeds of 30 km/h; whereas less than 20% survive at
speeds over 50 km/h (OECD & ECMT 2006).
The Safe System approach to road safety management recognises that humans make errors, that
crashes will continue to occur and that humans have a limited tolerance to impact forces. It aims
to ensure that the road/traffic environment does not present opportunities for that tolerance to be
Austroads 2012
— 3—
exceeded. In the pedestrian context this means ensuring that facilities provided for pedestrians do
not expose them to the likelihood of serious injury or death; that vehicles and pedestrians are
separated physically or temporally, or that the speed environment is controlled to keep potential
impact speeds within survivable limits.
Source: OECD & ECMT (2006).
Figure 1.1: Probability of death to pedestrian in a collision with a motor vehicle
Austroads 2012
— 4—
2 GUIDANCE ON PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

2.1 Australia and New Zealand
2.1.1 Austroads Guidance
The range of facilities provided in the road and traffic system to accommodate pedestrian activity
includes footpaths along urban streets, crossing facilities at midblock and intersection locations
(signalised or unsignalised), off-street pathways (exclusive pedestrian use or shared with bicycle
traffic), stairs, ramps, waiting or queuing areas, specific pedestrian streets or malls and shared
zones.
Guidance on the provision and management of pedestrian facilities was previously provided in the
Austroads Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice Part 13: Pedestrians (referred to here as
GTEP 13). That volume contained information specifically on pedestrians and other Guides in the
GTEP series made reference to it as required.
In the current series of Austroads Guides the advisory material on pedestrian issues is distributed
across three of the Guides, primarily in the Guide to Traffic Management (GTM) and the Guide to
Road Design (GRD), with some material in the Guide to Road Safety (GRS). See references
Austroads 2008-2009, 2006-2009 and 2009 respectively.
An analysis of the distribution of the GTEP 13 material, section by section, in the Austroads Guide
series is presented in Appendix A.
It is clear that almost all the information in GTEP 13 has been incorporated into the relevant
Austroads Guides. There is however some material which could not be directly identified, or only
partly so, within the Guides. Table 2.1 outlines this material and indicates the possible implications
for amendments or additions to the Guides.
Table 2.1: GTEP 13 material not directly identified in Austroads Guides

GTEP 13 Possible guide
Information Comment
section implication
Area per person based on land use. Table Could be updated if better data available and
presenting pedestrian space requirements incorporated into GTM 7 re Transit Oriented
1.4 GTM 7, 12
(m2/person) based on Building Code of Developments (TOD) or GTM 12 re accommodation
Australia 1990. of pedestrian trip generation.
‘Accident profile’ for pedestrian crashes. Updated information (and trends) would be a useful
Summary statistics indicating extent and addition to GRS 2 to emphasise the vulnerability of
1.4 features of pedestrian crash situation. GRS 2 pedestrians, especially young and elderly, and give
greater recognition of the need to address
pedestrian issues.
Pedestrian capacity and level of service, after Include as basic information in GTM 3 re pedestrian
Fruin (1987). Basic pedestrian speed, space capacity and LoS, as an introduction to more recent
1.6 GTM 3
and flow requirements related to LoS. considerations of pedestrian needs and analysis of
LoS.
Location of pedestrian signs. General Could be added to GTM 10 re signing for
4.1.1 information on location of signs within GTM 7, 10 pedestrians and GTM 7 re catering for pedestrians
pedestrian field of view. in activity centres.
Austroads 2012
— 5—
GTEP 13 Possible guide

Information Comment
section implication
Classification of guidance devices. Brief Not found specifically but is incorporated in
GTM 5, 6, 10
4.2.1 simple grouping of cues for people with reference to facilities for pedestrians with disabilities
GRD 6A
disabilities. in GTM 6 and 8. Possible addition to GRD 6A.
Pedestrian facilities at work sites. General Could include in brief discussion on traffic
advice on catering for pedestrians at management for temporary situations (GTM 10).
6.2 GTM 10
roadworks and building construction sites. Possibly incorporate into future guidance (new
Guide?) on traffic management at roadworks.
Complementary activities and programs. Could be a useful addition to discussion on local
Advice on role of programs such as crossing government based programs in GRS 4.
9 GRS 4
supervisors and general pedestrian safety
programs.
The new Austroads Guides have captured the vast majority of the GTEP 13 material, and have
introduced some additional aspects of pedestrian issues. Table 2.2 provides a summary of the
general pedestrian topics covered in the Guides.
Table 2.2: General pedestrian topics in Austroads Guides

Pedestrian topic Guide Part
General Road Design Part 4
Pedestrian design parameters Road Design Part 6A
Implications for design Traffic Management Part 7, section 3.8.2
Geometric requirements Road Design Part 6A
Features of facilities Traffic Management Part 5 Table 3.2
Surface treatments Road Design Part 6A
Driveways and footpaths Traffic Management Part 7, sections 3.5.3 and 3.8.2
Traffic Management Part 11
Access to buildings Traffic Management Part 7, section 3.8.2
Joint pedestrian/cycle facilities Traffic Management Part 5
Road crossings Traffic Management Parts 5 and 6
Pedestrian guidance measures Traffic Management Part 10
Traffic Management Part 6 Table 3.3
Access to public transport Traffic Management Part 5 Table 3.2
Pedestrians at roundabouts Traffic Management Parts 6 and 8
Road Design Part 4B
Pedestrians at rail crossings Traffic Management Part 6
Shared zones Traffic Management Parts 6, 7 section 3.6.2
Traffic Management Part 8
Parking and pedestrians Traffic Management Part 11
Details of the coverage of pedestrian issues in individual Austroads Guides are given in the
following sections.
Austroads 2012
— 6—
2.1.2 Guide to Traffic Management

The Guide to Traffic Management contains integrated advice and guidance on pedestrian issues.
This material is presented as required throughout the several Parts of the guide, as it relates to the
traffic management of roads, streets, intersections, local areas or adjacent land use developments.
The material is based primarily on the material published in the previous GTEP series, particularly
GTEP 13 as noted in Section 2.1.1.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 – Traffic Studies and Analysis

Advice on designing and conducting pedestrian surveys is given in this Guide, acknowledging the
increasing focus on providing for pedestrians in the road network; details are given in an appendix.
This is based on advice in the previous publication GTEP Part 3 (Traffic Studies).
The material on analysis of level of service also acknowledges the importance of giving explicit
consideration to pedestrian activity, including safety and amenity. However, advice on detailed
analysis of level of service is provided solely from the perspective of vehicular traffic.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 4 – Network Management

This Guide provides guidance on traffic management at a network level. It addresses the network
needs of the various categories of user, including pedestrians, and the characteristics of various
types of network. It outlines a planning process for balancing or prioritising the competing needs of
different users. A section on pedestrian networks provides advice on the road hierarchy context in
which these should be developed, and considerations in providing facilities for pedestrians,
especially those with disabilities.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 5 – Road Management

This Guide deals with traffic management on sections of road between major intersections.
Detailed information and guidance is given on factors to be considered in applying traffic
management techniques and treatments to various road types. It considers the needs of all road
users including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, heavy vehicles and public transport. Detailed
advice is given on road space requirements for these different road user groups. For pedestrians,
advice on traffic management covers general facilities in the road environment, pathways and
crossing facilities.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 6 – Intersections and Crossings

This covers traffic management at locations where traffic and road user streams intersect,
including all types of road intersections (signalised, unsignalised, roundabouts), grade-separated
interchanges, rail crossings and pedestrian and bicycle crossings of roads. Advice on pedestrian
needs at roundabouts, signalised intersections and midblock crossings is given. The Guide
presents detailed information and advice on factors to be considered in the selection and functional
design of intersections. It describes the appropriate use and design of various intersection types
and traffic management techniques, and considers the needs of all road users including
pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, heavy vehicles and public transport.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 7 – Traffic Management in Activity Centres

This Guide outlines the basic approach to planning and management of centres with high levels of
internal activity, especially pedestrian activity. It addresses the need for balance between
providing for normal vehicle traffic and facilities for other traffic such as public transport, pedestrian
and cycle traffic. Pedestrian streets are covered as a type of activity centre, and examples of them
in Australian cities are given.
Austroads 2012
— 7—
This Guide recognises the need to meet pedestrian mobility requirements and to address the level
of service provided for pedestrians, including the general quality of the pedestrian environment. It
presents the planning context for providing for walking within activity centres and contrasts that
with the approach needed at the local road level. Objectives are outlined for developing pedestrian
plans.
Transit-oriented developments (TOD) are described particularly with regard to their potential for
generating pedestrian activity, both within the centres and in connecting with public transport
facilities.
Pedestrian implications for traffic management practice in activity centres are outlined in terms of
access, environment quality and amenity, design of elements and managing vehicle-pedestrian
conflict. Special reference is made to speed management for pedestrian safety. A directory to
relevant material on pedestrian issues within other Parts of the Guide, and in other Austroads
Guides, is included.
This Guide also includes a commentary on the need for placing some emphasis on pedestrian
needs when defining, developing and managing a functional road hierarchy.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 – Local Area Traffic Management

Accommodation of pedestrian needs within local areas is a basic focus in this Guide. It provides
advice on the planning and management of road space within a local area, to reduce traffic
volumes and speeds in local streets, to increase amenity and improve safety and access for
residents, especially pedestrians and cyclists. It presents a systematic approach to traffic
management in local areas, including the design, development and management of residential
precincts. It provides guidance on the planning, selection, design, application and effectiveness of
traffic control measures and devices on an area-wide basis.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations

This provides guidance on the routine operations that underpin the provision of road services to
road network users. The material on traffic signal systems includes advice on pedestrian signal
phasing.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 10 – Traffic Control Devices

This covers the various control devices used to regulate and guide traffic, including signs, traffic
signals, pavement markings, delineators, and traffic islands. It provides guidance on the design
and use of traffic control devices, and advice on the functions, suitability and correct use of devices
to create a more efficient and safer road traffic environment for all users. Signs and markings for
facilities such as pedestrian crossings are included. The material on traffic signals provides advice
on pedestrian displays.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 11 – Parking

The Guide provides a broad coverage of the parking management process. It includes advice on
the demand for and supply of parking facilities, and the parking policy framework in which it should
be addressed. Parking policy objectives include consideration of pedestrians. The implementation
of on-street and off-street parking for all road users, including parking controls in urban centres is
addressed, as are park-and-ride facilities. Since all occupants of parked cars are also pedestrians,
particular attention is paid to the needs of pedestrians within and around off-street parking facilities.
Austroads 2012
— 8—
Guide to Traffic Management Part 12 – Traffic Impact of Developments

The Guide presents advice on identifying and managing the impacts on the road system arising
from land use developments. It provides guidance associated with the design and management of
a variety of land use developments, including the need to accommodate pedestrian activity within
and around the developments. Advice is given on the generation of pedestrian traffic and the need
to avoid pedestrian-vehicle conflict. The implications of land use planning for issues such as
pedestrian road-crossing needs, pedestrian routes, connectivity and access to developments
including public transport facilities and parking facilities are outlined.
Guide to Traffic Management Part 13 – Road Environment Safety

This Guide presents the principles and practice for ensuring a safe road environment within a
traffic management context, under the Safe System philosophy. It considers the role of traffic
management in influencing road user behaviour and emphasises the need for the road system to
provide an environment which assists all road users to behave effectively and safely.
Consideration of all road user types is basic to this approach. The advice includes basics such as
separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic, and outlines the role of road design and traffic
management in providing road and roadside safety.
Summary
A directory to the coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Traffic Management is provided in
Appendix B.
2.1.3 Guide to Road Design

There is substantial consideration of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Design, as
summarised in the following sub-sections.
Guide to Road Design Part 2 – Design Considerations

This Part provides guidance on the range of objectives likely to apply to a road design project,
including recognition of transport demands, safe and efficient traffic operations and achievement of
balanced provision for the needs of all road users, including pedestrians. Context sensitive design
and functional road classification are considered, and the vehicular, human and road factors
influencing design are discussed. This includes specific advice on providing for pedestrians.
Guide to Road Design Part 3 – Geometric Design

This outlines general advice on providing for pedestrians in considering the various elements of
geometric design.
Guide to Road Design Part 4 – Intersections and Crossings – General

This Part covers topics that are common to intersection design such as road design
considerations, the design process, choice of design vehicle, provision for public transport and
property access. It also provides guidance and information on the design of pedestrian and cyclist
crossing treatments.
Guide to Road Design Part 4B – Roundabouts

This covers design principles and provides guidelines for all the key elements to develop safe and
efficient layouts. It provides design advice for pedestrian and cyclist treatments at roundabouts
and related topics such as pavement markings, signs, and landscaping.
Austroads 2012
— 9—
Guide to Road Design Part 6 – Roadside Design

Roadside design relates to the areas between the outside edge of the shoulder or kerb and the
road reservation boundary and the provision of road furniture, utilities, roadway lighting, pedestrian
facilities, bicycle facilities, landscaping, noise attenuation structures, architectural features, rest
areas and median strips. It also covers roadside safety and the provision of safety barriers.
Guide to Road Design Part 6A – Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths

This Part provides the main guidance on design of paths for safe and efficient walking and cycling.
It includes a brief introduction to planning and the need for a path, describes the types of path and
the requirements of path users. The main focus of this Guide is the geometric design of paths and
related facilities such as intersections between paths, and terminal treatments. Detailed guidance
is provided on path location, alignment, width, clearances, crossfall, drainage and sight distance
requirements. This Guide provides complementary advice to that contained in the Guide to Traffic
Management in relation to traffic management devices and requirements that may need to be
accommodated within a roadside or may otherwise influence the design.
Summary
Table 2.3 provides an outline of the coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Design.
Table 2.3: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Design

Part of guide Section Material presented
Part 2 – Design Considerations 1.9 Providing for pedestrians in design
2.4 Pedestrian activity and road functional use, influence on design
Part 3 – Geometric Design 1.5 Pedestrian safety in design for Safe System
4.7 Various references to providing for pedestrian space in cross-section
4.9 Pedestrian issues near public transport HOV lanes
4.10 Pedestrian issues in on-street parking
4.11 Footpaths
Table 8.1 Vertical clearances for pedestrian paths
Commentary 3 Pedestrian issues in operating speeds
Part 4 – Intersections and Table 3.2 Pedestrian considerations in intersection design
Crossings – General 6.3.4 Pedestrian considerations at bus stops
8 Pedestrian crossings – mid-block, refuges, kerb extensions, kerb ramps
Table 8.1 Crossing features and considerations
Commentary 5 Pedestrian refuges
Commentary 6 Extended footpaths
Part 4B – Roundabouts 5 Pedestrian treatments at roundabouts
Commentary 1 Pedestrian safety at roundabouts
Part 6 – Roadside Design 6.5.2 Road safety barriers for pedestrians
Part 6A – Pedestrian and Cyclist All Planning and geometric design of pedestrian paths
Paths
Austroads 2012
— 10 —
2.1.4 Guide to Road Safety

The Guide to Road Safety addresses road safety management across a broad spectrum. There is
little coverage of pedestrian issues. Table 2.4 summarises the most specific material.
Table 2.4: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Safety

Part of Guide Section Material presented
Part 3 – Speed limits 3.2 Shared spaces and speed limits; reference is made to the fact that pedestrians
have priority in shared zones
Part 4 – Local Government and 1.5.1 Brief mention of responsibility for managing vegetation in the road environment so
Community Road Safety as not to force pedestrians off footpaths onto roads
1.5.2 Duty of care includes ensuring pedestrian safety is not compromised, so there is a
basic need to supply adequate lighting, and separation from vehicular traffic
Table 1.1 Summary of local government contributions to road safety; includes matters above,
and refers to role in developing policy for pedestrian safety
1.9.3 Passing reference to supervised school crossing programs
7.3.3 Brief mention of exploring the driver-pedestrian relationship as part of examining
social capital outcomes and measures
Part 6 – Road Safety Audit 7.6 Coverage of pedestrian issues in auditing land use developments
8.4 Brief general advice, in audit context, on designing for pedestrians, including
acknowledgement of pedestrians with disabilities
2.1.5 Guide to Road Transport Planning

The Guide (Austroads 2009) develops a map of jurisdictional road transport planning processes
with a particular focus at the road route and link level. It provides a best practice framework
against which current road transport planning practice in Australasia may be assessed. It
discusses elements and current trends in transport planning, and best-practice principles required
to achieve environmentally and socially sustainable transport solutions. There is some limited
consideration of pedestrian activity included in general discussion, but the focus is primarily on
vehicular traffic.
2.1.6 Australian Standards

The Austroads Guides provide general advice and guidance on agreed best practice. Aspects of
practice which are mandatory are specified in the relevant standards, and the Austroads Guides
make reference to these standards for details where required.
The primary reference here is the Australian Standard AS 1742 Manual of uniform traffic control
devices (2009). Several Parts of that standard provide information on matters related to pedestrian
facilities, as summarised below.
AS1742.10-2009 Pedestrian control and protection, specifies requirements for traffic control
devices for the control and protection of pedestrians at facilities on roads including pedestrian and
children’s crossings, mid-block pedestrian actuated traffic signals, pedestrian refuges and malls.
Austroads 2012
— 11 —
AS1742.3-2009 Traffic control for works on roads, covers advice and requirements for pedestrian
control at roadworks. This 2009 version has new material which needs to be referenced in GTM
(Part 10). The new material covers:
 Introduction of the concept of mobile speed limits with special reference to protection of
workers on foot during mobile works.
 Safety management of traffic and pedestrians on roadways temporarily converted from
one-way to two-way traffic.
Pedestrian matters are covered in other Parts of AS 1742 as summarised in Table 2.5:
Table 2.5: Pedestrian matters covered in Australian Standards

Standard Title Pedestrian matters covered
AS 1742.4 Speed controls Shared zones, school zones
AS 1742.7 Railway crossings Pedestrian facilities at railway crossings
AS 1742.9 Bicycle facilities Shared pedestrian/bicycle paths
AS 1742.14 Traffic signals Pedestrian crossings at signalised intersections
The Australian Standard AS 1428.1 Design for Access and Mobility – General Requirements for
Access (2009) specifies the design requirements for new building work, with particular attention to
paths of travel, access and facilities for people with ambulatory and sensory disabilities and who
use wheelchairs. AS 1428.4.1 (2009) sets out the requirements for the design and application of
tactile ground surface indicators (TGSIs) to ensure the safety of people who are vision impaired.
2.1.7 New Zealand Guidance

The NZ Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (NZTA 2007) is a comprehensive guide to planning
and design for walking. This material represents the major regional development in guidance on
pedestrian facilities since the Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice – Part 13.
The purpose of this Guide is to:

 improve the NZ walking environment
 provide a process for selecting pedestrian facilities
 provide design advice.
The Guide promotes a consistent world best practice approach to planning, design, operation and
maintenance of walking network infrastructure. It applies to all new or existing, walking/pedestrian
infrastructure along or across roads and off-road facilities. It is well illustrated with photographs
and diagrams.
Reference to the NZ Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide is included in several Parts of the
GTM as follows:
 GTM (Part 5), Table 3.1: Road space requirements for general traffic use – pedestrian
space.
 GTM (Part 6), Table 3.3: Issues for different road user categories – issues and treatments for
pedestrians; Table 8.1: Benefits of treatments – treatments, benefits and considerations for
different categories of crossing facilities.
 GTM (Part 7), Section 3.3.1: managing travel demand and travel behaviour change.
Austroads 2012
— 12 —
Substantial reference is made to the NZ Guide in Austroads GRD Part 6A with regard to the
planning and design of footpaths, in terms of physical requirements (space, clearances,
dimensions).
Comparison of the content of the NZ Guide with related coverage of issues across the Austroads
Guides is summarised in Table 2.6.
Table 2.6: Comparison of content – NZ Guide vs Austroads Guides

New Zealand Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide Coverage in Austroads Guides
Traffic Road Road
Section Chapter Details Management Design Safety
(GTM) (GRD) (GRS)
Context Planning and policy context (Ch.2) Transport and related strategies. Part 4 Part 2
What is the environment for planning Walking strategic plans. Part 7
for pedestrians?
Principles Pedestrian characteristics, Pedestrian speeds, space Part 4 Part 3 Part 3
preferences and activity (Ch.3) requirements, abilities, disabilities. Part 5 Part 4
How do pedestrians differ, and who Pedestrian activity – travel, Part 7
walks, where and why? recreation. Part 8
Traffic safety issues – pedestrian Part 10
vulnerability.
Part 13
Slips, trips, falls.
‘Wheeled pedestrians’.
Community walkability (Ch.4) Aspects of ‘walkable’ communities.
What makes walking attractive within Urban form issues and effects.
communities? Personal security issues.
Approaches to providing for Road user hierarchy. Part 4 Part 2 Part 3
pedestrians (Ch.5) Facilities inside and outside the Part 7
What are the underlying ways to road corridor. Part 11
accommodate walking? Environments – precincts, shared Part 12
zones, main streets.
Pedestrian network components Traffic reduction and calming. Part 3 Part 3 Part 3
(Ch.6) Footpaths, ramps, steps, shared Part 5
What type of facility can be used to paths, crossings. Part 6
provide for pedestrians? Selecting crossing facilities – level Part 7
of service, safety, speed limits, Part 8
access issues.
School crossings.
Islands, refuges, medians,
platforms, zebra and signalised
crossings, intersections,
roundabouts, grade separation, rail
crossings.
Process Planning for pedestrians (Ch.7) Community plans. Part 7
Which planning approach should be Workplace travel plans. Part 8
used? School travel plans. Part 12
Resource consent issues.
Austroads 2012
— 13 —
Traffic Road Road
(GTM) (GRD) (GRS)
Process Pedestrian planning process (Ch.8) Objectives, stakeholders.
(continued) How do we implement the plan? Action plans.
Implementation and monitoring.
Community involvement in scheme Techniques for community Part 4
development (Ch.9) involvement in walking plans.
Does the walking environment meet
the needs of pedestrians?
Assessing demand for walking Methods for assessing current and
(Ch.10) future demand for walking.
How many pedestrians want to walk
and where?
Measuring walkability (Ch.11) Desktop and on-site methods for
How is walkability assessed? assessing walkability.
Community street reviews.
Prioritising schemes (Ch.12) Methods for prioritising schemes Part 4
Which walking schemes should be for pedestrians.
done first?
Implementation (Ch.13) Establishment and management of
How should the walking schemes be walking-related projects.
implemented?
Design Footpaths (Ch.14) Provision and detailed design of Part 3
How do pedestrians move around? footpaths, ramps, steps, driveways, Part 6A
shared paths.
Geometry, gradient, surfaces,
clearances, landscape, street
furniture.
Crossings (Ch.15) Detailed design of crossing points, Part 5 Part 4 Part 6
How do pedestrians cross major kerb crossings, islands, refuges, Part 6 Part 4B
obstructions? kerb extensions, platforms, zebra Part 8 Part 6A
crossings, signalised crossings,
Part 9
intersections, roundabouts, school
crossings, rail crossings. Part 10
Measures to guide pedestrians Pedestrian signs (route, Part 6 Part 4

(Ch.16) information). Part 6A
How are pedestrians guided to their Physical channelling and fences.
desired destination?
Lighting the pedestrian network Lighting for footpaths, off-road Part 13 Part 6A
(Ch.17) paths and crossing points.
How is the pedestrian network
illuminated?
Maintaining the pedestrian network Maintenance of facilities.
(Ch.18) Pedestrian diversions at work sites.
How are pedestrian facilities kept in
good order?
Austroads 2012
— 14 —
Traffic Road Road
(GTM) (GRD) (GRS)
Post-design Monitoring pedestrian activity (Ch.19) Methods for measuring activity. Part 3
Do walking schemes achieve their Pedestrian surveys.
objectives?
Making best use of facilities (Ch.20) Approaches to promotion and
How can people be encouraged to encouragement for walking.
walk?
Appendices Appendix 1 Characteristics of elderly, child, Part 6 Part 6
Characteristics of pedestrians mobility-impaired, Part 7
sensory-impaired, wheeled Part 10
pedestrians.
Appendix 2 Details of sign lettering and
Signface design details symbols for pedestrian signs.
Appendix 3 General issues to be addressed

Issues to address in district plans from pedestrian facilities
perspective.
Appendix 4 Comprehensive list (178 items) of

References relevant literature.
Appendix 5 Alphabetical index with Section

Index references.
While the majority of the NZ Guide content is reflected in the Austroads Guides, omissions or lack
of detail are noted in the following areas:
 pedestrian requirements and characteristics in terms of space, density and speeds
 the vulnerability of pedestrians to serious injury in traffic, and the extent of pedestrian injuries
and deaths
 walkability issues – assessing the walking environment from the pedestrian and community
perspective
 determining practical levels of service for pedestrians at various facilities
 developing and implementing walking strategies and plans, including community involvement
 promotion and encouragement of walking activity
 signposting of off-road pedestrian paths and routes
 maintenance of pedestrian facilities.
Some of these differences reflect the fact that the NZ Guide is in effect a manual for all aspects of
walking and pedestrian facilities for that particular jurisdiction, whereas the Austroads Guides
provide general guidance on road and transport issues (which include pedestrian matters) across
the Australasian region.
Details of approaches to engaging the community in the development and implementation of

strategies will need to be pursued in the context of policies specific to the jurisdictions concerned.
Austroads 2012
— 15 —
Similarly, jurisdictional strategies for encouraging walking need to be developed in alignment with
the relevant government policies.
Pedestrian characteristics
As noted in Table 2.1, the Austroads Guides contain limited information on pedestrian
characteristics, in terms of speeds and space requirements, as an input to pedestrian capacity
considerations. The NZ Guide provides more comprehensive information on this, plus data (albeit
for NZ only) on typical pedestrian journey times and distances.
Pedestrian safety
The NZ Guide presents useful summary and trend information on pedestrian traffic fatalities and
injuries as recorded in NZ. The particular risk situations for children and the elderly are
summarised. The Austroads guides would benefit from inclusion of similar information.
The vulnerability of pedestrians to serious injury in traffic is highlighted by reference to the

probabilities of survival for different vehicle-pedestrian impact speeds, and the implications for
speed limit setting and the provision of lower speed environments. There is no direct reference to
the ‘Safe System’ approach, the basis of road safety strategies across Australia and NZ, as the NZ
Guide predates the formal declaration of that approach in national road safety strategies.
The Austroads GRS provides the main source of information and guidance on the ‘Safe System’
approach – including specific reference to pedestrians – and this is reflected generally in the other
Guides. However, it is acknowledged that there are further opportunities in the GRD and GTM to
emphasise the approach in respect of pedestrian facilities and safety management.
Walkability
Of the above listed issues, the material on walkability is considered to be one of the more
important in the context of defining areas for enhancement of the Austroads GTM. ‘Walkability’ is a
descriptor used to indicate the extent to which the built environment is regarded as suitable or
acceptable, in terms of physical and perceived attributes, for walking; that is, an indication of the
quality of the walking environment.
The NZ Guide contains useful guidance on measuring walkability. It points to the need to combine
both desktop analyses (of pedestrian desire lines and route connectivity) and on-site assessments
(involving technical audits and pedestrian ratings) of routes and facilities. This has led to the
development of community street reviews (NZTA 2010). These reviews combine the community
street audit approach, which identifies deficiencies and opportunities for improvements, with a user
perceptions rating system. The procedure rates the environment with respect to overall walkability,
as well as more detailed characteristics such as safety, security, obstacles, delay, impedance by
others, directness of route, and ambience.
Further work (Abley & Turner 2011) has been undertaken for NZTA to assist in quantifying the
quality of a walking environment. That research has provided formulas for predicting the quality of
the walking environment from the perspective of pedestrians, using operational and physical
variables. These were derived by combining the perception data gathered from participants in
community street reviews with measurements of the walking environment, and covered both
walking along a street and crossing the street.
Austroads 2012
— 16 —
Level of service
Another issue of importance for enhancement of the GTM is the assessment of factors for
determining relative levels of service for pedestrians, as input to the selection of appropriate
crossing facilities. The NZ Guide presents useful information on the development of an approach
to this going beyond the traditional method of using numerical warrants based only on traffic and
pedestrian flows. A more comprehensive and context sensitive approach is outlined, considering
also safety and delay issues.
Further discussion is presented in Section 3.5.1.
It should be noted that the information on the assessment of walkability and level of service as
presented in the NZ Guide is based on research undertaken in NZ, and that further work to refine
the material is recommended (Abley & Turner 2011). Its applicability beyond NZ is yet to be
tested. Nevertheless, the approach is conceptually sound and the Austroads Guides would benefit
by including reference to this material.
2.1.8 Developments in Australia

In recent years there have been several developments in policy and strategic planning initiatives in
Australian jurisdictions aimed at giving greater recognition to walking activity in the transport
sector. These have been associated with various documents giving guidance on strategies,
provision and management of pedestrian facilities in the road/transport environment.
The Australian documents regarding walking strategy, and some related technical guidance
documents, are presented in Table 2.7.
The approaches taken in the strategies are outlined in the material at the reference sites listed.
Common features of the walking strategies are:
 a multi-agency (health, planning, transport) approach to development of an ‘active living’
vision
 acknowledgement of the health, social, economic and environmental benefits of walking
 the need to plan and develop infrastructure facilities which increase the appeal for walking as
a transport mode and recreational activity.
It is to be noted that several of the substantive documents are in draft format and not yet formally
released. In some instances, papers and reports documenting research and consultation activities
contributing to strategy developments have been completed. Some of these are available through
the websites listed; others have not been released and are not available for citing.
Guidelines relating to the provision of facilities and assessment of level of service for pedestrians
are discussed further in Section 3.
It is acknowledged that many transport-related strategies and plans embodied in documents such
as those listed in Table 2.7 are subject to changes in government policies and directions. Direct
reference to these in the Austroads Guides might therefore be short-lived. A suitable approach
would be to ensure that the basic strategic thrust of contemporary initiatives is captured in the
Guides, with a caveat that details may change in accordance with changes in jurisdictional policies.
Austroads 2012
— 17 —
International guidance has been sought on the planning and development of many Australian cities
with a focus on providing a better environment for ‘active living’ activities such as walking and
cycling. For example, case studies of most Australian capital cities (Gehl Architects 2011) offer
suggestions for addressing pedestrian issues in reshaping the city environments for more
sustainable development.
Table 2.7: Developments in Australia regarding walking strategy

Jurisdiction Documents References
ACT Transport for Canberra – Transport for a Sustainable City www.tams.act.gov.au/move/sustainable_transport
2012–2031
NSW NSW Walking Strategy (under development) www.pcal.nsw.gov.au/draft_nsw_walking_strategy
Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plans (PAMP) www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/lgr/downloads/pr

ograms/pedestrians.html
Vic Walking and Cycling Literature Review www.transport.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/313
69/WalkingCyclingLiteratureReview.pdf
Smart Roads Connecting Communities www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/TrafficAndRoadConditions

Smart Roads Program Guidelines /HowWeManageTraffic/Smartroads/
Inner Melbourne Action Plan – Greenlight Project www.imap.vic.gov.au
Qld Action Plan for Walking 2008-2010 www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/48567c2a-cf0c-4580-9626-

255bef76378c/pdf_walking_action_plan.pdf
Guidelines and Prioritisation Procedure for Pedestrian www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/1e04a428-c039-4b1c-9a78-

Facilities ba518cd71091/3_13.pdf
WA Walk WA: A Walking Strategy for Western Australia www.beactive.wa.gov.au/index.php?id=350

2007–2020
Planning and Designing for Pedestrians – Guidelines www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/AT_WALK_P_plan_d
2011 esign_pedestrians_guidelines.pdf
Walkability Audit Tool 2011 www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediaFiles/AT_WALK_P_Walka

bility_Audit_Tool.pdf
SA 30-Year Plan for Greater Adelaide 2011 www.dplg.sa.gov.au/plan4adelaide/index.cfm
Streets for People – Compendium of Practice (Draft) www.health.sa.gov.au/pehs/branches/health-

promotion/21%20Watts-PHCS-HPB-20111212.pdf
Guidelines for Disability Access in the Pedestrian www.dpti.sa.gov.au/standards/tass

Environment
Tas Walking and Cycling for Active Transport Strategy www.dier.tas.gov.au/passenger_transport/tasmanian_walk
ing_and_cycling_for_active_transport_strategy
Austroads 2012
— 18 —
2.1.9 Pedestrian Facility Trials

The increased interest in strategic planning for walking, and provision of related facilities, has been
accompanied by some further examination of details of pedestrian facilities in recent years,
seeking ultimately to develop further the available guidance.
For example, pedestrian countdown timers and pedestrian signal phasing changes have been
investigated at signalised facilities.
Pedestrian countdown timers (PCTs), providing users with information on the available crossing
time remaining, are used widely in some European countries and are now mandated for use in the
USA for all new traffic signal installations. A review of international experience (Levasseur &
McTiernan 2010) indicated there was merit in trialling their application in Australia.
A trial in Melbourne (Cairney et al. 2010) included video surveys to investigate the effect of the
PCTs on pedestrian behaviour and compliance, and intercept surveys to determine the views of
crossing users. It was concluded that there was no reliable indication of an improvement in
pedestrian behaviour or a reduction in risk to pedestrians following installation of the PCTs.
An investigation of trial PCT installations in Sydney (Levasseur & Brisbane 2011) concluded that
there was no net improvement with regard to safety or compliance, but an increased amenity for
pedestrians arising from reduced delay at crossings was suggested.
In NZ, a trial of PCTs was undertaken at a signalised intersection that operated using scramble
pedestrian phasing. Results of the study (Wanty & Wilkie 2010) were inconclusive, but pointed to a
reduction in compliance which suggested a potential reduction in safety. A further trial with
amended pedestrian phase timings was recommended.
No definitive guidance for PCT installations in Australia has yet emerged. It is understood that
trials of PCTs are to commence in Western Australia.
A limited trial of a Puffin pedestrian crossing installation was undertaken in NZ (King 2009). The
Puffin crossing, where pedestrian presence on the crossing is detected and crossing timings
adjusted accordingly, was installed with nearside displays for pedestrians. It was concluded that
Puffin crossings offered advantages over normal signalised midblock crossings and that the
nearside displays gave rise to better user compliance than did the usual far-side displays. A
separate evaluation (Murray & Walton 2009) confirmed this.
Puffin crossings are used in Queensland (QDMR 2002) and Victoria (VicRoads 2008) and are
undergoing trials in NSW.
2.2 International Guidance

2.2.1 Walk21 Movement
The Walk 21 conference proceedings over the last few years (www.walk21.com) have proven to be
a valuable source of information, especially with reference to the release of major documents for
the ‘Pedestrian Quality Needs’ (PQN) project and the PUSH project.
The Walk 21 movement has been instrumental in fostering the development of the International
Charter for Walking (www.walk21.com/charter/default.asp), and encouraging its implementation in
major world cities. The Charter identifies the needs of people on foot and provides a common
framework to help authorities refocus their existing policies, activities and relationships to create a
Austroads 2012
— 19 —
culture where people choose to walk. It sets out strategic principles for adoption to this end, and
lists actions that can be taken to encourage walking in cities and foster healthier communities.
In Australia, the ACT Government is a signatory to the International Charter for Walking and has
undertaken Walk21 benchmarking for Canberra, details of which are given in SKM (2011).
During the course of this project, the opportunity was taken to attend the Walk21 Conference and
discuss developments with researchers.
2.2.2 Pedestrian Needs Study

The report for the Pedestrian Quality Needs (PQN) project was finalised in November 2010, and
released at the Walk 21 Conference at that time (Methorst et al. 2010). Details are available at
www.walkeurope.org. The complete documentation is also available on CD, a copy of which has
been obtained.
The project addressed the presence and behaviour of pedestrians in public spaces, mobility, safety
and health aspects, and the physical and social environment. It showed that walking is very
complex and there is more to it than just as a transport mode. The project report provides
recommendations including guidelines for national/state/local governments, practitioners and
non-government organisations.
Separate Working Group reports under the PQN project addressed aspects of walking as follows:
Exploring pedestrian needs and behaviour – PQN Working Group 1

Two basic types of mobility were identified – walking from A to B as a total trip, and walking as part
of another trip, which may involve other transport modes. There is also the activity known as
sojourning, involving the social aspects of walking such as standing, conversing, looking and
resting. Safety and personal security issues also present an important influence on walking
activity. It was acknowledged that comprehensive data sets are needed to measure all
characteristics of walking.
Perceived needs – PQN Working Group 2

Identification of pedestrian needs was acknowledged as a complex issue from the methodological
perspective, and in terms of capturing the relevant context, and physical and social interaction
aspects of walking. Many factors contribute to the fulfilment or frustration for different groups of
walkers. Traditional methods of measuring pedestrian activity are not always appropriate, and
there is a need to engage walkers directly to understand their needs. The needs and abilities of
both active and potential walkers need to be considered, and used in marketing approaches which
encourage walking.
Future of walking – PQN Working Group 3

People, spaces and energy are the basic aspects emerging in consideration of the future of
walking in cities. A mixture of forecasting and back-casting can be used to estimate the walking
scene in 2030. Factors such as ageing societies, health/wellbeing trends, and the focus given to
leisure and tourism activities need to be taken into account. Trends in urban sprawl and renewal,
changes in residential density, and different foci on city centre vs peripheral development are basic
considerations. A basic policy implication is to place pedestrians and walking at the centre of
future visions for cities and their public spaces.
Austroads 2012
— 20 —
2.2.3 PUSH Project

This study (OECD & ITF 2011) assembles evidence on pedestrian activity and safety, based on a
global review. It acknowledges that while walking is the most natural form of mobility, cities have
not always evolved to accommodate the needs of pedestrians and walking has in many cases
been neglected in the development of transport systems. The study suggests that improving the
pedestrian environment can contribute significantly to meeting the challenges of climate change,
air pollution and health.
The report presents evidence on the importance of walking in transport policies, and provides
guidelines for developing a safe environment conducive to walking, as an essential contribution to
creating liveable cities. Recommendations are made in respect of policies, planning, provision and
management of walking facilities, with a particular focus on pedestrian safety, and with implications
for the development of initiatives to encourage more walking.
2.2.4 AASHTO Pedestrian Facilities Guide

The ‘Guide for Planning, Design and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities’ (AASHTO 2004) is a
substantial compendium on planning for pedestrians (including coverage of traffic management
approaches and initiatives), designing the pedestrian environment and facilities, and the operation
and management of facilities such as signals, signs and footpaths.
The main sections cover planning, design of facilities, facility operations and maintenance which:
 provide guidance for pedestrian facilities along streets and highways
 identify measures for accommodating pedestrians
 recognise land use planning and site design effects on pedestrian mobility.
The Guide also provides good general guidance and refers to other major US documents such as:
 The ‘Greenbook’ – Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (AASHTO 2011) -
for general direction and road design context on facilities design
 The Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA 2009) for general direction on
relevant traffic control devices, warrants, design for pedestrian signs/signals
 The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2010a) for direction on LoS for pedestrians on various
facilities
 The Uniform Vehicle Code (NCUTLO 2000) for traffic laws for pedestrians.
It is noted that there are now available more recent editions of the documents than those referred
to in the 2004 pedestrian facilities guide. The most recent references are listed above.
The guide is based on all US reference material and represents a North American parallel to
material covered in the earlier GTEP Part 13.
The content is well documented and illustrated, including basic design information for existing and
new facilities, and advice on neighbourhood traffic management and traffic calming.
2.2.5 Pedestrian Safety Manual

A pedestrian safety manual is currently being developed by a consortium of global organisations
led by the World Health Organisation (WHO). It is intended to be an addition to the series of Good
Practice Manuals published by the Global Road Safety Partnership (see
www.grsproadsafety.org/our-knowledge/good-practice-manuals).
Austroads 2012
— 21 —
It will consolidate and summarise material from many countries, primarily those with well-
developed safety management experience, and offer guidance to practitioners and decision
makers on pedestrian safety management.
It will cover the transport and planning context of the pedestrian safety situation, and summarise
the current extent of the problem area. In a structure similar to that of other global safety manuals,
the manual will provide advice on the preparation, implementation and evaluation of pedestrian
safety programs. It is understood that the manual is scheduled to be released in late 2013.
2.2.6 UK Guides
A notable example of initiatives addressing the pedestrian environment is the report Transport for
London, Improving Walkability (Transport for London 2005). This guide highlights the importance
of securing high quality improvements to the walking environment, including all streets and spaces
that are used by the public, and shows how new developments provide opportunities to achieve
such improvements. It is a good practice guide to improving the ‘walkability’ of the streets, squares
and other public spaces.
In the residential context, the UK Manual for Streets (DfT 2007) emphasises that streets should be
places in which people wish to live and be active, not just transport corridors. In particular, the
manual aims to reduce the impact of vehicles on residential streets and gives a high priority to the
needs of pedestrians, cyclists and users of public transport. It sets out an approach to residential
streets that recognises their role, shows how the design of residential streets can be enhanced and
demonstrates the benefits of good design to the users. While its scope is limited to residential and
other lightly trafficked streets, some of its principles may be applied to other road types where
appropriate.
A variant on the shared zone concept, known as a ‘shared space’, has been developed in recent
years. Shared spaces are typified by removal, or at least reduction, in traffic control devices, and
the reduction or removal of clear demarcation of separate vehicle and non-motorised areas. The
concept has been applied across a broad range of street types in the UK, and details of design
features have been similarly varied. Normal priorities between vehicles and pedestrians apply, but
the design and appearance of the environment encourages sharing. Recent developments in
application of shared spaces in the UK are documented in a comprehensive guide (DfT 2011)
which presents the principles of the facilities, the needs and behaviour of the road users
(pedestrians, cyclists, vehicle drivers), the development of shared space schemes, and detailed
advice on design.
Austroads 2012
— 22 —
3 GUIDANCE ON LEVEL OF SERVICE

3.1 Definition
The Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 defines Level of Service (LoS) as a ‘qualitative
measure for ranking operating conditions, based on factors such as speed, travel time, freedom to
manoeuvre, interruptions, comfort and convenience’. Definitions are provided defining six levels of
service designated A to F (Table 3.1).
The definitions provided in this table are defined using drivers or vehicles, and are taken to be
generally applicable to other types of users and traffic units. However, the increasing attention
being paid to the provision of pedestrian facilities, together with better understanding of pedestrian
needs and perceptions of the walking environment, raises basic questions as to how well the LoS
for pedestrians can be assessed from the traditional approach.
Table 3.1: Level of Service definitions

LoS Description
A A condition of free flow in which individual drivers are virtually unaffected by the presence of others in the traffic stream.
Freedom to select desired speeds and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream is extremely high, and the general level of
comfort and convenience provided is excellent.
B In the zone of stable flow where drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their desired speed and to manoeuvre within
the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience is a little less than with level of service A.
C Also in the zone of stable flow, but most drivers are restricted to some extent in their freedom to select their desired speed and
to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience declines noticeably at this level.
D Close to the limit of stable flow and approaching unstable flow. All drivers are severely restricted in their freedom to select
their desired speed and to manoeuvre within the traffic stream. The general level of comfort and convenience is poor, and
small increases in traffic flow will generally cause operational problems.
E Traffic volumes are at or close to capacity, and there is virtually no freedom to select desired speeds or to manoeuvre within
the traffic stream. Flow is unstable and minor disturbances within the traffic stream will cause breakdown.
F In the zone approaching forced flow, where the amount of traffic approaching the point under consideration exceeds that
which can pass it. Flow breakdown occurs, and queuing and delays result.
Source: Austroads (2008–2009).
3.2 LoS Guidance in GTM

GTM Part 3 provides further guidance for determining LoS for different types of traffic facilities,
including uninterrupted conditions (i.e. single lane flow, two-lane two-way road, multi-lane roads
and freeways), interrupted conditions (i.e. those with control features or geometry which force
vehicles to stop or queue) and intersections (signalised, unsignalised and roundabouts). This
guidance is based on material in the US Highway Capacity Manual (HCM).
The HCM is the predominant reference used internationally to define LoS and provides details on
associated measurement and analysis. The material on LoS provided in the existing edition of
GTM Part 3 is based on the guidance contained in the 2000 edition of the HCM (TRB 2000).
GTM Part 3 contains no direct guidance on LoS for pedestrians other than a table adapted from
HCM 2000 which indicates the general service and performance measures to be considered for
pedestrians (space, speed and delay). This reflects the general treatment of pedestrian LoS
material in HCM 2000 where pedestrian traffic is considered in a manner primarily in parallel with
that for vehicular traffic.
Austroads 2012
— 23 —
A brief discussion is also included in GTM Part 3 on the need to consider pedestrian traffic in the
planning and design of networks, in the context of its effect on road capacity.
The 2010 version of the HCM has recently been published (TRB 2010a) and presents significant
additional material on determination and analysis of LoS, particularly for pedestrians, as discussed
in Section 3.4.
3.3 Highway Capacity Manual 2000

3.3.1 Pedestrian Flow
The Highway Capacity Manual 2000 defines the concepts of capacity and level of service (LoS)
and presents methods for analysing these for a broad range of facilities across streets and
highways, intersections and pedestrian and cyclist facilities.
For pedestrians, the primary material is:

 Chapter 11 which defines the concepts for pedestrian activity and LoS
 Chapter 18 which provides methodologies for assessing pedestrian facilities.
Chapter 11 outlines the principles of pedestrian flow, and defines the basic variables (see
Table 3.2).
Table 3.2: Key terminology for pedestrian flow

Term Description and units
Pedestrian speed (S) Average pedestrian walking speed, measured in metres per second (m/s)
Pedestrian flow rate Number of pedestrians passing a point per unit of time, expressed as pedestrians per minute
Pedestrian unit flow rate (v) Average flow of pedestrians per unit of effective walkway width, expressed in pedestrians per minute per metre
v=S*D=S/M
Pedestrian density (D) Average number of pedestrians per unit of area within a walkway or queuing area, expressed as pedestrians per
square metre
Pedestrian space (M) Average area provided for each pedestrian in a walkway or queuing area, expressed in terms of square metres per
pedestrian. This includes the basic plan ellipse plus consideration of forward space.
Source: TRB (2000).
Other measures relating to pedestrian flow include interaction with crossing or opposing main
stream flows, and delays at intersections. Additional factors contributing to the perceived LoS for
pedestrian facilities are acknowledged as:
 comfort (weather protection, climate control, shelter)
 convenience (walking distance, path directions, grades, signing information)
 economy (costs from delays and queuing)
 safety (physical and temporal separation from vehicular traffic)
 security (lighting, open sight lines).
The relationships between pedestrian space requirements, flow rates and walking speeds are
presented, and indicative practical values for these and start-up times and capacity are given. The
effects of bunching and platooning of pedestrians are also outlined. Pedestrian platoons are
defined in a manner similar to that for vehicle flow.
Austroads 2012
— 24 —
The LoS criteria for pedestrians are developed primarily in terms of space, flow rates, speeds and
delays – which are readily measurable – and input data requirements also include geometric
features such as footpath length and width, corner radii and crosswalk dimensions. While the
more subjective aspects of the walking environment such as those listed above are acknowledged,
they are not taken directly into account in determining pedestrian LoS.
HCM sets out the LoS criteria for pedestrians on a walkway, in terms of space and average flow
rates (see Table 3.3) following the traditional approach used for vehicular traffic. This is based on
the original theoretical work of Fruin (1987), an earlier version of which appears in the previous
Austroads GTEP 13.
Table 3.3: Pedestrian levels of service on a walkway

Level of service Description
A Pedestrian Space > 5.6 m2/p Flow Rate ≤ 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.
B Pedestrian Space > 3.7–5.6 m2/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.
C Pedestrian Space > 2.2–3.7 m2/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.
D Pedestrian Space > 1.4–2.2 m2/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.
E Pedestrian Space > 0.75–1.4 m2/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.
F 0.75 m2/p Flow Rate varies p/min/m
Pedestrian Space ≤
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.
Source: TRB (2000).
3.3.2 Pedestrian Facilities LoS

Chapter 18 deals with the capacity and LoS analysis of pedestrian facilities. These include
walkways, footpaths, queuing areas, off-street paths, crosswalks and facilities along urban streets.
Austroads 2012
— 25 —
These are categorised by uninterrupted-flow facilities (pedestrian paths, shared paths and queuing
areas, where pedestrians are not disrupted by other vehicular traffic) and interrupted-flow facilities
(signalised and unsignalised intersections, and footpaths along urban streets which have elements
of both interrupted and uninterrupted flow).
Methods of analysis are provided for these different facilities and LoS criteria are derived for each
facility type. The procedures include determination of walking speed and the effective walkway
width, and LoS criteria are presented in terms of space, flow rates, speed and/or delay, as
applicable. Worked examples – with worksheets – are included.
The calculations do not include any direct consideration of the factors which contribute to
pedestrian perceived levels or quality of service. However, it is acknowledged that input data may
be estimated or derived to reflect local conditions (and this may well capture some elements of
perceived LoS) rather than using the default values in the HCM.
3.4 Highway Capacity Manual 2010

3.4.1 Overview
The HCM 2010 was released in March 2011. The 2010 edition incorporates the results of
considerable research activity undertaken in the decade since the publication of the 2000 edition.
This has come largely from extensive National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP)
work that has focused on HCM methods and procedures.
It should be noted that whereas a metric unit version of the HCM 2000 had been available, there is
no metric version of the HCM 2010 edition.
A major input of direct relevance to pedestrian LoS assessment has been provided by NCHRP
Project 3-70, Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets, documented in NCHRP
Report 616 (TRB 2008). The objective of that project was to develop a framework and enhanced
methods for determining levels of service for cars, public transport, bicycle and pedestrian modes
on urban streets, with particular reference to the interaction among the modes.
An overview of the development of material for HCM 2010, with a particular focus on LoS, is given
by Roess et al. (2010) It is pointed out that one of the main motivations for the NCHRP 3-70
research project was the need to consider the role of user perceptions in determining LoS for
various facilities. This recognised that user perceptions are heavily influenced by non-operational
factors, such as environmental and aesthetic considerations – especially for pedestrians.
Further details of studies relevant to the assessment of pedestrian facilities and the determination
of pedestrian levels of service are given in the literature review in Section 4 of the present report.
HCM 2010 is divided into four volumes (concepts, uninterrupted flow, interrupted flow and an
applications guide). There are no chapters dealing exclusively with pedestrians (or other single
modes). The main chapters relating to pedestrians are outlined in Table 3.4:
Austroads 2012
— 26 —
Table 3.4: Pedestrian LoS information in HCM 2010

Chapter Content
Chapter 3 – Modal characteristics Section 3 (Pedestrian Mode) summarises the needs of pedestrians, pedestrian
facilities and interactions with other modes.
Chapter 4 – Traffic flow and capacity Section 3 (Pedestrian Mode) summarises pedestrian calculations, flow
concepts parameters, pedestrian facility calculations and capacity concepts.
Chapter 5 – Quality and LoS concepts Outlines quality of service from traveller perspectives, and factors affecting those.
Provides a basic outline of LoS for different modes, and measurements, for
specific modes and different facility and roadway types, especially including urban
streets and off-street facilities.
Chapter 16 – Urban street facilities Outlines a multimodal approach to LoS on urban street facilities including an
overview of the method and required input data for different modes.
Describes a method for evaluating performance of urban street facilities for
pedestrians in terms of space, speed and other considerations.
Chapter 17 – Urban street segments Provides a method for determining capacity and quality of service for travelling
along an urban street.
Considers different travel modes, LoS criteria and required input data for different
modes.
Includes an evaluation method for segments.
Chapter 18 – Signalised intersections Describes methods for evaluating the performance of signalised intersections
related to pedestrian service (similar to the HCM 2000 method).
Chapter 19 – 2-way stop-controlled Provides a similar method to Chapter 18, but for this type of facility (similar to the
intersections HCM 2000 method).
Chapter 21 – Roundabouts Includes limited discussion regarding pedestrians and suggests using the Chapter
19 method, considering results with a degree of caution.
Chapter 23 – Off-street pedestrian and Provides capacity and LoS estimation procedures for off-street facilities (e.g.
bicycle facilities walkways, paths, ramps, plazas, stairways and shared paths with cyclists, runners,
skaters, or other user types).
3.4.2 Determining Level of Service

HCM 2010 considers assessment of the LoS of road or highway facilities from a substantially
different approach. The substantial change is inclusion of a multimodal level of service approach,
which recognises that different mode users could perceive the quality of service differently due to
their different perspectives and experiences. This approach considers the different road user
perspectives for vehicles (cars), public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.
A facility can be assessed by determining the LoS score for each of the modes, and comparing the
numerical scores against the LoS criteria. An overall LoS is not calculated. Judgments on the
selection or development of the facility must be made on the basis of the different modal scores,
and additional relevant information (e.g. safety performance), depending on the function intended
for the roadway concerned. This necessarily involves consideration of how one mode affects the
service quality of other modes, and trade-offs between modes.
The method includes a complete street analysis approach for interrupted flow facilities (segments
and crossings, including at roundabouts). Emphasis is placed on ‘quality of service’ to consider
how well a facility or service operates from a user’s perspective.
Austroads 2012
— 27 —
The HCM 2010 presents pedestrian LoS criteria in the context of the multimodal LoS approach,
with underlying calculations incorporating factors reflecting pedestrian perceptions, preferences
and behaviour as indicated by research studies. Less emphasis is placed on pedestrian density
and space factors than was previously the case. Details of the computational methods are given in
the NCHRP Report 616 (TRB 2008) and in the electronic Volume 4 Applications Guide of the HCM
2010.
3.5 Local Guidelines

The LoS concept for facilities from the pedestrian perspective has been developed in some
jurisdictions as outlined in the following sections.
3.5.1 New Zealand

The NZ Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide is summarised in Section 2.1.7, with an outline
given in Table 2.6.
The Guide includes (Chapter 6) a description of the procedures developed for selecting
appropriate crossing facilities, based firmly on the LoS concept. The approach considers a wide
range of factors and involves a complex system of decision trees and calculations. This led to the
development of a spreadsheet tool (Tate & Waibl 2007) to calculate and compare levels of service
for various proposed crossing facilities or improvements.
The guide contains example figures emanating from the spreadsheet analysis, based on inputs for
flow type, lane numbers and widths, pedestrian characteristics and walk speeds. These present
the relationships between pedestrian delay and traffic volume for various crossing facilities and
enable an assessment of levels of service in terms of pedestrian delay. An example is reproduced
as Figure 3.1.
Relative crash reduction factors for the various facilities may be used also to assist in selection of
the most appropriate facility.
This approach differs from the traditional method of numerical warrants based primarily on traffic
and pedestrian flows. It allows judgments to be made from a broader perspective, considering
safety and delay issues. Further NZ work on development of measures to assess walkability of the
pedestrian environment and information from community street reviews (see Section 2.1.7) will
allow incorporation of additional user perceptions and a refinement of the procedure and the LoS
criteria.
Austroads 2012
— 28 —
Source: NZTA (2007).
Figure 3.1: Mean delay for various crossing facilities on a two-lane, two-way urban road (uninterrupted flow)
3.5.2 Queensland
A procedure for the assessment and selection of pedestrian crossing facilities and prioritisation of
sites for treatment has been developed in Queensland, and incorporated into a technical manual
(QTMR 2011). A description of the initial approach and development of the procedure is given in
Setter and Stewart (2002).
The procedure uses a series of spreadsheets to define levels of service in terms of the primary
factor of delay to pedestrians attempting to cross the road (see Table 3.5), and to capture
information on features of the location and facility under consideration. Points are generated for
the defined LoS, and additional points are generated to modify the scores to account for other
factors such as pedestrian volumes, pedestrian characteristics, crash history, restricted visibility,
proximity of other crossings, network and connectivity factors, and local traffic impacts.
Guidelines are provided relating the point scores to various crossing facilities, and giving guidance
on the application of the facilities, their advantages and disadvantages. Judgments may then be
made on the selection of an appropriate facility or treatment of the location.
The procedure provides a more comprehensive and meaningful method of selecting or assessing a
pedestrian facility than does the traditional method of numerical warrants based only on vehicular
and pedestrian volumes.
Austroads 2012
— 29 —
Table 3.5: Pedestrian Level of Service for uninterrupted traffic flows

Average time
between suitable LoS Classification Description
gaps (s)
< 10 A Excellent Pedestrians are able to cross almost immediately upon arrival at
the crossing point.
10 – 20 B Very good Most pedestrians are able to cross with little delay.
Average ped delay ≤ 10 sec.
95-percentile worst case delay ≈ 40 sec.
20 – 30 C Satisfactory Most pedestrians are able to cross within an acceptable period.
30 – 40 D Some concern Some pedestrians have to wait longer than desirable for a gap.
40 – 80 E Major concern Most pedestrians have to wait longer than desirable for a gap.
> 80 F Unsatisfactory Most pedestrians have to wait longer than acceptable for a gap.
Average ped delay > 40 sec.
Source: QTMR (2011).
3.5.3 Victoria
The SmartRoads program developed in Victoria (see Table 2.7) aims to better manage the use of
roads and better link transport to adjacent land use. Guidelines for the implementation of
SmartRoads (VicRoads 2010) set out a road user hierarchy and present guiding principles for the
different transport modes (public transport, freight, pedestrians, cycling, general traffic, etc.). The
different modes have different operating objectives, and these influence the applicable Level of
Service definitions. For pedestrian LoS the approach taken is to consider crossing opportunities
and ease of crossing, which can be defined in qualitative and quantitative terms. The SmartRoads
guidelines describe the LoS for pedestrians as shown in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6: Level of Service for pedestrians

LoS Description
A Crossing opportunities are within 25 m of demand.
Minimal delay in crossing.
B Crossing opportunities are within 50 m of demand.
Average delay before being able to safely cross is less than 30 sec.
C Crossing opportunities are within 100 m of demand.
D Crossing opportunities are within 200 m of demand.
Significant numbers of pedestrians start crossing illegally.
E Crossing opportunities are within 400m of demand.
Austroads 2012
— 30 —
LoS Description
F Crossing opportunities are more than 400m from demand.
Average delay before being able to safely cross is more than 90 sec.
Source: VicRoads (2010).
3.6 Implications for Austroads Guides

The primary implication arising from consideration of the material available on pedestrian level of
service is that the Austroads Guides need to present more advice and guidance. This needs to
cover the following:
 basic considerations of pedestrian flow in determining pedestrian LoS
 acknowledgement of the influence of other factors which significantly influence pedestrian
perceptions of LoS
 reference to the multimodal approach to LoS contained in the HCM 2010
 summary material on Australian and New Zealand work in developing practical LoS criteria
for pedestrian facilities, and related procedures for selecting and assessing those facilities.
The main implications are for the Guide to Traffic Management (GTM) Part 3, which presents the
basic material on capacity and LoS, and Part 6, which presents material on pedestrian crossings of
roads. Additional material would also be relevant in GTM Part 5 on allocation of space in the road
corridor, and in GTM Part 8 on pedestrian facilities in local area traffic management.
Austroads 2012
— 31 —
4 LITERATURE REVIEW
4.1 Scope
The main focus for the literature review was the provision and assessment of pedestrian facilities
with regard to 'level of service' (or 'level of comfort') provided.
The review was conducted using the resources of ARRB Group’s M.G. Lay Library, the leading
land transport library in Australia.
The purpose of this literature review was to identify published research or related developments
and practices regarding the planning, provision and assessment of pedestrian facilities, their
adoption (or potential for inclusion) in relevant guidance documents and to assist in determining
possible amendments necessary to Austroads Guides.
The literature search covered two main areas of interest:

 studies undertaken in recent times on pedestrian perceptions of service, comfort, security,
attractiveness, walkability, etc. and how best to incorporate such issues into quantifiable
measures of levels of service, and into design guidance
 the concepts and tools for measuring and assessing levels of service and capacity of
pedestrian facilities.
The keywords and scope used to examine the extensive literature included the following:
 facilities such as footpaths, sidewalks, shared paths, pedestrian precincts/malls, queuing
areas, crossings (midblock, intersections)
 development of algorithms, formulae relating pedestrian perspectives to physical
characteristics of facilities
 pedestrian perspectives to cover level of service, level of comfort, safety (both road safety
and personal safety/security)
 possible climatic/weather influences on pedestrian behaviour and use of facilities
 derivation/measurement of pedestrian speed/flow relationships and behaviour for different
facilities
 considerations for pedestrians with disabilities
 techniques to assess/evaluate pedestrian facilities from efficiency, comfort, space, safety
viewpoints
 special considerations at roundabouts, intersections (signalised and unsignalised), rail
crossings and tram stops
 multi-modal assessment of traffic facility capacity
 latest developments in pedestrian LoS-related matters.
4.2 Sources
The M.G. Lay Library resources included the library’s own comprehensive collection of technical
land transportation literature and information retrieval specialists with extensive experience in the
transport field, as well as access to the collections and expertise of other transport related libraries
throughout Australia and internationally.
Austroads 2012
— 32 —
Used in this literature search were the Australian Transport Index (ATRI), TRANSPORT and
Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) databases, whose content is coordinated by
ARRB, the OECD/ECMT and the U.S. Transportation Research Board respectively. Use of these
databases ensured wide coverage of quality research material within the subject area from national
and international resources.
4.3 Pedestrian Activity

4.3.1 Defining and Measuring Walking
Walking is a complex activity and its measurement has been the subject of considerable
development under the PQN project (Methorst et al. 2010). Refer to www.measuring-walking.org
for details.
Sauter and Wedderburn (2008) aimed at developing a set of international guidelines for the
collection, analysis and dissemination of qualitative and quantitative techniques for measuring
walking. They examined the characteristics of walking to identify implications for the type of data
needed and the methodology for data collection.
Pedestrian counts
There are two main purposes for pedestrian counts:
 monitoring and management of pedestrian activity
 project management – design, planning, appraisal, evaluation of facilities.
What needs to be measured depends on the purpose of the project. Measurement of time
exposed in walking may be required, not just the distance travelled.
Sojourn activities
Walking is not simply moving from A to B. It involves several other aspects, known as ‘sojourn
activities’ – wandering, standing, meeting, greeting, etc. Sojourning is based on the intent of being
there (whether the activity is static or not) and may relate to a main purpose such as recreation,
shopping or other activity; social interaction is a strong theme. The health perspective also needs
to be considered.
Measuring
There is a need to have core data for each purpose, and it may not be appropriate to consider
simply pedestrian counts. Surveys may need to be extended beyond the front door or gate into
private property. Safety (e.g. stumbling) and security aspects should be included where relevant.
Instructions to surveyors are important for consistency and comparison.
A useful tool is video which provides a rich source of re-analysable information from different
perspectives.
GPS technology is also becoming more widely used for tracking movements, including pedestrian
activities. A study by Van der Spek (2010) observed walking patterns of people with GPS devices
in the city of Delft, obtaining extensive individual and collective data on route characteristics. Such
data have great potential for influencing the design of cities and open spaces.
Austroads 2012
— 33 —
Travel data/surveys
Understanding the reasons for the surveys is required, which will then allow different measurement
techniques to be used together. The technical, social and cultural aspects of walking and walking
facilities need to be addressed. Some techniques and types of measurements to be considered
include:
 time spent walking
 different types of walking – voluntary/forced, stroll/hike/sport
 'walking trip' vs. combined purpose trip
 complementary surveys, e.g. household interview to get representative details, to add to
more general survey results
 internet surveys which have fewer errors than phone surveys or home visits.
4.4 Pedestrian Perceptions of Facilities

In the decade between the release of the 2000 and 2010 editions of the Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM) there was a substantial research effort in the USA aimed at exploring the many factors that
contribute to pedestrian perceptions and assessment of the walking environment. This approach
recognised that user perceptions are heavily influenced by non-operational factors, such as
environmental and aesthetic considerations – especially for pedestrians – and was aimed at
clarifying the role of user perceptions in determining LoS for various facilities (Roess et al. 2010).
4.4.1 Crossing Facilities

A study of pedestrian perceptions of crossing facilities (Sisiopiku & Akin 2003) was conducted in
East Lansing, Michigan. This area had recently been refurbished in order to facilitate both vehicle
and pedestrian flow, and consideration had been given to increasing pedestrian safety.
Pedestrians’ perceptions were surveyed and their crossing related behaviour videoed at signalised
and unsignalised intersection crosswalks and unsignalised midblock crosswalks. Intercept surveys
at the sites were considered too costly, so 5000 surveys were sent via email to randomly chosen
staff and students of Michigan State University as the campus runs the entire length of one side of
the test site. Respondents were asked about their behaviour at signalised crossings.
The number of useable surveys returned was 711. Only 9.6% indicated that they crossed when
the green pedestrian signal was showing. Of the remainder, 45.2% indicated they did so when an
acceptable gap occurred and 45.2% when the traffic had cleared. These figures are for a
signalised crossing that has traffic light phasing where one lane stays stationary while the other
lane turns, thus making it possible to cross half of the road on the red pedestrian signal. Video
data was gathered for the whole street at the peak times of 10.30 am to 1.00 pm and 2.30 pm to
6.00 pm on weekdays and Saturdays. Analysis of the video data showed that 59% of observed
pedestrians crossing the road did so at designated crossings.
Familiarity may play a part for pedestrians who choose to cross at undesignated areas. It was
noted that respondents who did not cross the road daily were more likely to do so at a designated
crossing (82%) than those who crossed on a daily basis (66%). When respondents were asked
their main reason for crossing at undesignated areas 39.5% said it was more convenient, 25.9%
that it was to save time and 28.7% said that there was no risk associated with crossing when the
traffic was not heavy.
Austroads 2012
— 34 —
Respondents indicated whether any of eight pedestrian features (or barriers) influenced their
crossing locations (existence of pedestrian signal, presence of midblock crossing, red coloured
brick pavement, shelter over a midblock crossing, ‘cross only when traffic clears’ signs, presence
of other pedestrians that attempt to cross, distance to the desired location and vegetation or
barriers on median). Distance to their desired location was the factor identified by 90% of
respondents as influencing their decision about where to cross (90%). Midblock crossings and
pedestrian signalisation were also highly influential (83% and 74% of respondents, respectively).
The presence of vegetation or barriers did influence pedestrian behaviour to some extent (65%)
but due to the manner in which the survey was constructed there is no way to know if this
influenced respondents to cross at designated locations, encouraged them to skirt around the
obstacles or to move to another undesignated area. The treatments few respondents regarded as
having an influence on their crossing locations were median shelters (34%) and coloured paving
(41%). There were no gender effects but there was a finding for age effects involving the influence
of distance of desired location on crossing location. Statistically significantly fewer of those in the
55 and over age group (74%) felt that the distance of their desired location influenced where they
crossed compared with those aged 20 years and younger (92%) and 21 to 55 years (90%).
The ability to generalise these results to the general populace may be compromised due to the
way in which the survey participants were recruited. Not only did it limit respondents to those who
were in the immediate vicinity for work or study, it also limited the age distribution and other factors
such as education level and socio-economic status.
Chu and Baltes (2001) document a research project that developed a model of mid-block crossing
difficulty as perceived by pedestrians. Four aspects of the research are reported: research design
issues; selection of potential determinants; data collection; and statistical analysis. This model was
developed through a statistical calibration and validation process involving collecting actual site
characteristics and stated levels of crossing difficulty by a sample of persons at a sample of sites in
Florida. For traffic operations applications, this model may be used as a screening tool to
determine whether pedestrian mid-block crossing facilities, such as crosswalks or pedestrian
signals, may be needed at particular locations. This model also has a number of applications for
planning purposes. The model included selection of potential determinants of perceived
pedestrian quality of service for midblock crossings from a theoretical analysis of behaviour, and a
practical analysis of planning needs (Chu & Baltes 2003).
Part of the development process involved participants visiting and rating 31 midblock crossing sites
in the USA. The sites differed in terms of whether there were traffic signals at the intersections,
presence of a marked pedestrian crossing or signals, length of the signal cycle, the number of
lanes to cross and if there was a treated median. The participants were informed about the
purpose of the study and given a definition of crossing difficulty. Each participant was taken to five
sites where they approached the crossing and observed the traffic flow, traffic gaps and signal
cycles for three minutes between 9 am and 2.30 pm. Ratings were then made ranging between ‘A’
(no difficulty in crossing) to ‘F’ (extremely difficult to cross).
The following variables were used in the model (+ indicates an increasing level of difficulty
crossing, – indicates a decreasing level of difficulty crossing, ± effect unknown):
 + aged 65 or over
 + volume of vehicles per hour (near and far side)
 + number of vehicles turning per hour (near and far side)
 + average speed
 + width of crossing (near and far side)
Austroads 2012
— 35 —
 – width of raised median

 – width of painted median
 – pedestrian crossing
 ± pedestrian signal
 ± signal cycle length in seconds (near and far side)
 ± spacing of signals (in feet).
The model explained 34% of the variance in the data. Only average speed and width of painted
median were non-significant and most variables in the model behaved as predicted. More
specifically, wide painted medians, presence of a pedestrian crossing and a high volume of
vehicles were associated with an increased perception of crossing difficulty. The most important
variables in judging crossing difficulty were signal cycle length and how closely signals were
spaced. These are the primary factors in deciding traffic flow and how long and frequently gaps
occur in the traffic.
Results from this study should be viewed with caution, given that the recruited participants may or
may not have been familiar with the crossings, that participant ratings may have been influenced
by making comparisons between crossings they had seen earlier in the day, and that rating drift is
likely to have occurred. As seen in Sisiopiku and Akin (2003) those who regularly crossed at a
particular location treated crossings in a different manner than those who crossed less frequently.
Guardrails and fences

Guardrails and similar devices can be used to channel pedestrian crossing behaviour to particular
crossing points. The main purpose of guardrailing is to improve safety by trying to prevent
pedestrians from crossing the road at an inappropriate place or from straying into the road
inadvertently. Guardrailing or fencing can also be used to offer some protection to pedestrians at
locations where the swept path of large vehicles, such as buses and heavy goods vehicles, takes
the vehicles close to the footway.
The use of guardrail can be inconvenient to pedestrians, and lead to an unattractive and cluttered
environment, and people may be deterred from walking by inappropriate placement of barriers.
Revised guidance on guardrail fencing (DfT 2009) suggests that local authorities should be
encouraged to develop a more pedestrian-friendly environment by using traffic calming and
complementary measures, rather than fencing, to improve the street environment and its
accessibility. This reflects increasing calls for providing better pedestrian facilities, eliminating
street clutter and improving the streetscape, including a reduction in the use of guardrailing.
The guide provides advice and a procedure for assessment of the need for the installation or
removal of pedestrian guardrail fencing on the existing road network, particularly at pedestrian
crossings and road junctions.
4.4.2 Signalised Intersections

In a study of pedestrian perceptions of safety at crossings at signalised intersections in Sarasota,
Florida (Lin & Boudreau 2003), 266 respondents were asked to pick one signalised intersection
they considered to be the safest out of 15 chosen by the authors. Frequency of use of their
chosen signalised intersection was also assessed. Just over a quarter (25.9%) used the
intersection they identified as the safest less than once a week, 60.2% used it 1 to 10 times per
week, 6.0% 11 to 20 times a week and 7.9% more than 20 times a week.
Austroads 2012
— 36 —
The survey presented 14 reasons that were thought might impact on feelings of pedestrian safety
at a signalised intersection. Respondents were asked to choose and rank their top five reasons.
This process was repeated for the signalised intersection respondents chose amongst the 15 as
being the least safe to cross. Respondents then chose the five improvements amongst 14 options
they believed would make signalised intersections safer.
Pedestrians ranked signalisation with a marked crossing and good visibility (including lighting) as
the two most important aspects of a safe signalised intersection. Poor visibility was ranked eighth
in the dangerous crossing reasons. The number of lanes to cross and traffic volumes were fairly
consistently placed for the safe and dangerous signalised intersections.
Of the 14 options for improving safety, respondents gave the top ranking to installation of
pedestrian signals and a marked crossing. Good lighting was ranked second and provision of a
median was third. While the study provides valuable information, providing a fixed list of factors
was a weakness in the design. Providing respondents with the opportunity to add their own
reasons may have uncovered aspects to feelings of safety or danger not identified by the authors.
In Australia, the Inner Melbourne Action Plan (IMAP) includes a series of projects aimed at
understanding the effectiveness of interventions to encourage walking by improving safety and
comfort. This includes examination of measures to improve safety and convenience for
pedestrians at identified signalised crossings. The IMAP Greenlight project examines signal
design to provide for priority pedestrian movement at periods of high demand. This supports a key
element of the SmartRoads approach (VicRoads 2010) which is the better use of signals to provide
for efficient movement of people and goods throughout the transport system.
The Greenlight project investigated how signal re-design could deliver safer, more comfortable
journeys for pedestrians at key crossing points at 20 intersections across the inner Melbourne area
(Hutchinson 2011). It examined changes in pedestrian behaviour and perceptions at sites which
had changes to signal operations. These changes included late introduction of pedestrian signal
activation, increased pedestrian clearance time, Puffin signal operation, pedestrian head start,
automatic pedestrian signal activation, and changed SCATS phasing.
Treatments were assessed in relation to providing improved access for pedestrians and
addressing the barrier effect created by arterial roads and traffic. Most treatments were also
assessed in terms of their ability to improve safety as a prerequisite for encouraging more walking.
Minor improvements in signal timing were shown to improve pedestrians’ comfort and increase
crossing opportunities. Effective signal treatments to addressing the barrier effect included:
 increased clearance time and green time for pedestrians to improve the feeling of safety
 Puffin crossing operation to provide safe crossing for the elderly or people with mobility aids
 late introduction of pedestrian phase activation at long traffic cycle times, or if time does not
permit automatic introduction of the pedestrian phase
 removal of pedestrian fencing in some situations to increase the perception of safety
 direct, wider crossing areas with enough time to cross in a single phase, to significantly
increase pedestrian demand.
4.4.3 Safety for Different Crossings

Research into pedestrian perceptions of safety at different types of crossings has been undertaken
on behalf of VicRoads (Kerryn Alexander Research 2006). Pedestrians were surveyed at 15
locations in Melbourne for three days during four time periods (8.00 to 9.00 am, 3.00 to 4.00 pm,
Austroads 2012
— 37 —
4.30 to 5.30 pm and 6.00 to 7.00 pm). A total of 917 pedestrians were surveyed at zebra crossings
with flashing lights (Z, six locations), midblock pedestrian operated signals (POS, three locations),
Pelican (PEL, one location), Puffin (PUF, one location), standard intersections (SI, three locations)
and complex intersections (CI, two locations). When asked how unsafe they felt crossing at their
particular location, responses for Z ranged from 7% to 32%, POS between 1% and 19%, PEL 8%,
PUF 7%, SI between 1% and 29% and CI between 5% and 52%.
This range demonstrates very clearly that the type of crossing provided is not the only factor
affecting perceptions of safety while crossing the road. Traffic flow at the time of crossing was also
estimated to investigate its effects on perceptions of safety. At the CI where 52% of respondents
felt unsafe the traffic flow was heavy 61% of the time while at the CI where 5% of respondents felt
unsafe it was heavy 34% of the time. This pattern was not seen at the SI intersections where one
that had heavy traffic flow 61% of the time was regarded as unsafe by 26% of respondents and
another that had light traffic flow 61% of the time was regarded as unsafe by 29% of respondents.
A respondent’s age was only related to perceptions of safety at either end of the spectrum; 32% of
those aged 80 or over felt unsafe while crossing compared with only 9% of teenagers. Twelve to
19% of those aged 20 to 79 felt unsafe when crossing the road. The majority of respondents felt
they had enough time to cross the road (85% to 100%). Only three sites fell below the 85% level.
These sites were at the only PUF crossing, one CI and one POS crossing (67% to 73%).
It can be concluded from this study that many factors, not just crossing design, impact upon
pedestrians’ perceptions of safety.
4.4.4 Roundabouts
Candappa et al. (2005) endeavoured to make a roundabout in Port Philip (Melbourne, Victoria)
more pedestrian friendly. The roundabout had pedestrian refuges and these were altered to
become wombat crossings, thus giving priority to pedestrians. Various before and after data were
recorded, including a survey of pedestrian’s perceptions of the safety and ease of crossing. There
were 169 respondents in the before period and 157 in the after period.
Perceptions of safety while crossing rose significantly, from 24% to 64%. Significantly more
respondents felt that travel speeds were satisfactory after the treatment compared with previously
(47% and 66% respectively), and that drivers were giving pedestrians priority (30% before and
78% after). Over half (54%) of respondents felt that the crossing was easy to use before the
treatment and this rose to 89% after the treatment. Waiting times were deemed to be adequate by
only 15% of respondents before the treatment, while 76% felt this was the case after the treatment.
The proportion of pedestrians crossing within the designated crossing zone rose from
approximately 55% to 93%.
There were some concerns expressed by respondents. Some thought the treatment might
confuse people and this might make it dangerous for pedestrians if drivers were unsure about who
had priority. Others suggested that flashing lights should be installed. There was also concern
that rear end crashes may result from increased congestion.
A significant reduction in mean speeds both 30 m (from 32.7 km/h to 30.7 km/h) and 5 m (from
19.1 km/h to 16.31 km/h) from the crossing occurred, and the potential consequences for vehicle
occupants in a rear end crash were reduced.
Austroads 2012
— 38 —
A recent US publication (TRB 2010b) provides information and guidance on roundabouts, for
designs suitable for a variety of typical conditions in the United States. It provides general
information, planning techniques, evaluation procedures for assessing operational and safety
performance, design guidelines, and principles to be considered for selecting and designing
roundabouts.
A separate publication (TRB 2011) provides practitioners with specific guidance on establishing
safe crossings at roundabouts for pedestrians with vision disabilities. It identifies the conditions
under which pedestrians with vision disabilities may experience problems with crossing
performance, and suggests specific treatment solutions. It also includes advice on conducting
pedestrian/vehicle studies related to these problems, and on quantifying pedestrian accessibility at
crossings.
4.4.5 Route Choice

In order to understand and quantify the influence of the overall level of service of the urban walking
environment on pedestrian route choice behaviour, a method for estimating the overall LoS of
pedestrian walkways and crosswalks was developed (Muraleetharan & Hagiwara 2007). This was
based on the concept of total utility value, which comes from a stated preference survey. Each
sidewalk and crosswalk link was assigned an overall LoS according to its operational and
geometric characteristics determined from field measurements. For analysis of pedestrian
behaviour, this study used data from a revealed preference survey on individual route choice
behaviour. A geographic information system network database was used to store the
characteristics of the routes that pedestrians used. Network analysis was used to analyse the
routes, which included determination of the shortest-path routes and the optimized-LoS-path routes
between origin-destination pairs. A comparative analysis of the actual routes and the estimated
alternative routes was performed. A multinomial logit model was developed to express the route
choice behaviours of pedestrians quantitatively. It was indicated that pedestrians choose routes
not only for distance but also for the overall LoS of sidewalks and crosswalks. On longer travel
paths, pedestrians divert from the shortest-path route and are found to use sidewalks and
crosswalks with high LoS. On shorter routes, pedestrians tend not to avoid sidewalks or
crosswalks with low LoS. The results lend further support to the idea that accommodating
pedestrians in urban areas should focus on improving the walking environment of the road
network.
Schlossberg et al. (2007) undertook a survey investigating community walkability in areas with train
stations in San Francisco, California (two stations) and Portland, Oregon (three stations). They
approached people who were walking to the stations were approached and given a survey and a
map on which they were to trace the route they had taken. Based upon the assumption that
pedestrians would be influenced in their choice of route by factors such as distance, ease of
access and pleasantness, only locations where the streets were on a grid pattern were chosen.
The grid pattern locations also offer pedestrians a larger number of routes than other street
patterns. This makes it more likely that pedestrians will choose routes not solely based on the
shortest distance to their destination.
A total of 328 people filled out the survey. The majority (64%) of surveys returned were from the
two San Francisco stations and results are therefore more representative of this population. Often
respondent’s self-reported distance walked was inaccurate compared to the route traced on the
map. The actual distances estimated from the map are discussed here: the average distance
walked (converted from miles to kilometres) was 0.84 km. The minimum was 0.03 km and the
maximum was 3.03 km (25th percentile was 0.43 km; 50th percentile was 0.76 km; 75th percentile
was 1.09 km).
Austroads 2012
— 39 —
Respondents were also asked to give three reasons why they chose their particular route. This
was followed by a list of eleven factors the authors had chosen as affecting route selection and
respondents were asked to rate their influence on a three point scale (very important, somewhat
important, not important).
A total of 52% of respondents gave the first reason for their route choice as being the shortest or
fastest route; 10% gave this as their second reason. The second reason with the highest
percentage (14%) of respondents saying that this was a primary factor in their route choice was
‘safety’. In common with the volunteered reasons for choosing their route, the factor respondents
rated the highest from the authors was shortest route (82% very important, 17% somewhat
important). The three factors rated between 85% and 87% (when combining very important and
somewhat important) were: traffic devices are present, traffic drives at safe speeds and footpaths
are in good condition. Other factors were presence of attractive buildings, trees and landscaping
(79%), no traffic lights where it takes a long time to cross (68%), other people out walking (60%)
and shops/businesses to stop in (56%, again these all combined very important and somewhat
important). The three factors falling below the 50% level when combining very important and
somewhat important were: shops/businesses with windows to look in (38%), benches/places to sit
(26%) and having a friend/neighbour along the route (25%).
Schlossberg et al. (2007) also carried out an audit of the area surrounding two of the stations using
both objective and subjective measures of walkability. Intersections and blocks were audited as
separate features, with a view to combining audit data (which was mapped) with the data where
respondents plotted their route on a map. There were few differences between the routes people
chose or avoided and their audited features in terms of engineering features or traffic volumes.
This could be due to the fact that these respondents were headed to a rail station, so the shortest
route would be the most likely route. As the authors note, the pedestrian environment on the
routes people chose were all of a fairly good standard. However, routes using arterial and collector
roads were rated as worse than those primarily using residential roads.
Ovstedal and Ryeng (2002) surveyed pedestrians in Belgium, Finland, France, Italy, Norway and
Switzerland about their perceptions of their current walking experience. They surveyed 1092
pedestrians at a total of 22 sites. Approximately 90% of the respondents walked the route fairly
frequently. Most (nearly 60%) had walked for their entire journey in Italy, France, Finland and
Norway, whereas the minority did so in Belgium (23%) and Switzerland (8%). In countries where
respondents had lower levels of having walked the entire journey, they had been making a
multi-modal trip. Usually this involved public transport and walking, or cycling and walking.
When asked why they had chosen that particular route 71% of respondents said that it was the
quickest or shortest way to their destination. The factor deemed to be most important on their
current routes was that it felt safe. This gained the highest score in all six countries. The next
three reasons deemed the most important were: air quality (especially lack of odour), comfort (this
leaned more toward weather factors and surroundings) and ease of wayfinding (as the majority of
respondents were familiar with their route this may have had more to do with practice effects than
good signage).
In general this study adds weight to other studies that have found that distance is the most
important factor in pedestrian trips. It does, however, suggest that pedestrian level of service
ratings may be influenced by factors other than the built environment such as odour and weather.
Austroads 2012
— 40 —
4.4.6 Walking for Pleasure

Five areas in Montgomery County, Maryland were used by Livi Smith (2009) to investigate whether
perceptual and objective measures of the walkability of an area showed any relationship to one
another. Three recruitment methods were used: mail outs, telephone calls and home visits. In
total 293 participants were recruited for the study (no demographic details were given).
Participants filled out a travel diary and completed a survey which focused on their immediate
neighbourhood (defined as 1 to 20 minutes from home). Most questions were taken from the
Neighborhood Environment Walkability Survey (NEWS) (Saelens, Sallis, Black & Chen, as cited in
Livi Smith), which has been tested for reliability. Not all of the perceptual data collected was used.
Only those that had a corresponding measure on the pedestrian auditing instrument (objective)
were included. The reverse was also true: if there was an objective measure with no
corresponding perceptual measure this too was dropped from the analysis.
Various models were used to analyse the data. The one with the best fit included dummies for the
study areas, perceptual and objective measures. The demographics of age and employment
status were not significant but gender was significant, as was the number of vehicles owned. The
greater the number of vehicles owned, the less walking was undertaken. In terms of the gender
effect, women had a greater likelihood of walking than men. It was noted that this is not the usual
pattern seen in the reviewed literature, and it was hypothesised that this may have been an
indicator of walking for pleasure rather than for reaching a particular destination.
Tree cover was significantly positively associated with walking on the perceptual measure. This
was not significant in the objective measure but cleanliness of the environment was significantly
positively associated with walking. Footpaths (presence/absence and quality) were significantly
negatively associated with walking only on the objective measures. Land use (commercial,
residential, mixed) was only significantly positively associated with walking on the perceptual
measure.
Another factor where perceptions and reality seemed to differ is motorised transport (presence of
three or four way intersections, number of lanes, bus stops). Objective measures showed that
walking was significantly positively associated, whereas the perceptual measures show that it was
significantly negatively associated. The in-text explanation of the results differed from the table
outlining the results. This showed the objective measure as being significantly negatively
associated with walking.
If, as theorised in the paper, the participants in this study were primarily walking for pleasure it
would indicate that factors other than the shortest route are important to pedestrians as was seen
in Schlossberg et al. (2007). More research is required into the perceptions of level of service
amongst this group if walking for pleasure is to be encouraged.
4.4.7 Effects of Weather

Aultman-Hall, Lane and Lambert (2009) collected pedestrian volume data at a location in the CBD
of Montpelier, Vermont for one year along with corresponding weather information to investigate
the effects of weather on pedestrian volumes.
Between January and April (winter) volumes were significantly lower than other months.
December is also a winter month but lower volumes were not observed – probably due to
increased shopping activity in the Christmas period. Significantly fewer pedestrians were recorded
on the CBD footpath on weekdays and Saturday in inclement weather. When it was raining
pedestrian volumes dropped by 13% and when it was snowing they dropped by 16% compared
Austroads 2012
— 41 —
with times of no rain. This was not the case for Sundays or on holidays. While weather does
influence pedestrian volumes in Montpelier’s CBD, other factors also heavily influence walking.
Attaset et al. (2010) carried out a study in Alameda County, San Francisco Bay area of California
into the effects of weather on pedestrian volumes. One pedestrian counter was present in its
location for one year while the other counters were shifted between 12 locations where recordings
covered between three and four months’ worth of data. The counters were installed at
intersections but recorded pedestrian volumes on the footpath. While extremes of weather do
have an effect on pedestrian volumes in this part of the world they are not pronounced – most
likely due to the mild nature of weather variation in this location.
Burke et al. (2006) took walking trip data from the South East Queensland Travel Survey for late
2003 and early 2004 and matched it with the corresponding weather data. This limited the weather
variability for the period in which walking trips occurred. A total of 10 931 people took part in the
survey throughout South East Queensland. No route information was included in the survey and
Burke et al. (2006) chose to focus on the number of trip stages reported rather than the distance as
the survey assumes respondents chose the shortest route for each trip stage. Additionally, no
information was gathered about weekend travel.
Although the study shows that extreme weather has no effect on walking rates care should be
taken given the limitations of the study. The data used was not fine-grained as the trips were
aggregated and there was no way to separate walking to commute, which will suffer less due to
weather, from walking for pleasure or exercise which will be more likely to be affected by weather.
Nor was the study able to target specific times of day which would have given a broad indication of
trip purpose. Only weekday walking trips were captured.
4.4.8 Pedestrians with Disabilities

Sanderson (2005) gathered opinions from two groups about the criticality of 18 features of
crossings for mobility impaired pedestrians: those who are mobility impaired (or advocate on their
behalf) and local government authority designers of pedestrian facilities. Questionnaires were sent
to the Engineering Department (LGE) of each of the 72 Victorian local government authorities, and
35 of these were returned. Focus groups were held with Disability Advisory Committees or Groups
representing Frankston, Wyndham, Boroondara and Glen Eira. Group size ranged from 7 to 12
people. Individual interviews were held with four students from Monash University.
Sanderson chose 18 features of pedestrian crossings for participants to rate in terms of criticality
(critical, desirable, not desirable, important, not important). The group representing the needs of
mobility impaired pedestrians rated more features as being critical (12, as compared to 6 by LGE).
Of the 6 features LGE did not rate as critical, 4 were rated as important and 2 as desirable
features. This disparity possibly results from differing concerns between the groups: LGE were
more likely to be balancing criticality with available funding, whereas the mobility impaired
representatives were more likely to be focusing on making crossing the road as easy as possible.
Focus groups were asked to come to a consensus about what was the single most critical feature
for crossings. This task produced much discussion and two groups were not able to reach a
consensus.
It should be noted that the focus groups provided a criticality rating as a group rather than, for
instance, gathering individual ratings and tallying these to determine a rating for each feature.
Future studies should consider asking the mobility impaired representatives to rank each rating.
This would have enabled a ranking of importance for each of the critical features. It may be
necessary to do this on an individual basis rather than as a group given the experience in this
study.
Austroads 2012
— 42 —
Kerryn Alexander Research (2006) surveyed 22 mobility impaired pedestrians amongst their 917
respondents. They found that 37% indicated that they were not given adequate time to cross at
signalised intersections. Some respondents had experiences in the past where they had to wait in
the painted centre line on the road (i.e. no pedestrian refuge had been provided). Other issues
raised were the gradient being too steep at curbs and refuges, issues negotiating tram and train
tracks, difficulties with rough surfaces and cobblestones, and issues with users being seen.
No vision impaired pedestrians used the crossings included in the Kerryn Alexander Research’s
(2006) study. Data about their perceptions concerning what constitutes a safe or unsafe crossing
was gathered in a focus group. Of primary concern to this group was the availability at pedestrian
crossings of both tactile and auditory cues. The most helpful auditory cues were those using
different sounds for each direction. Signalised crossings were, by far, their most preferred type of
facility and that the pedestrian signal button was on the traffic light pole.
Another highly valued feature at crossings was the ramped kerb, or ‘pram ramp’. This was
invaluable to the vision impaired pedestrians for indicating where to cross as well as which
direction to take. Issues were found with pram ramps that ‘pointed’ at an angle. It was mentioned
that those with vision impairments find yellow the most easily seen. Ensuring that road and
pavement markings were not worn was another important factor to consider in the provision of
crossings for this group.
Raised pedestrian refuges were preferred as they made people in this focus group feel safer
(which is at odds with the needs of those with mobility issues) and they preferred refuges to have
no plants on them as they were likely to walk into them. Pedestrian refuges were also able to
provide one of their favoured crossing features: narrow crossing points where they had to cross
traffic moving in one direction only.
4.5 Level of Service for Pedestrians

Level of Service for pedestrians should be defined in terms of pedestrian needs, preferences and
perceptions, not just in terms of traffic related quantities such as flow rates and delays. It needs to
extend beyond ‘service’ to cover other aspects such as comfort, security, etc., to represent a
broader Level of Quality (LoQ) approach.
4.5.1 Addressing Pedestrian Needs

Changes in approach have been developed, especially with the new HCM 2010. The
commissioning of substantial research, providing background leading to revised treatment of LoS
(especially for modes other than automobiles), are included in HCM 2010.
Summary of approach
Roess, Vandehey, and Kittelson (2010) discuss the concept of level of service (LoS) which was
introduced in the 1965 edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). It provided for the familiar
letter-grade system for characterising the quality of operations on a variety of traffic facilities from
intersections to freeways. The LoS concept in the 2010 edition of the HCM, introduces material
directly related to user perceptions. Discussions surrounding LoS have raised interesting issues
that may result in more extensive changes in the future. This paper attempts to address some of
these issues in the context of the history of the LoS concept and its use in the planning, design,
and analysis of traffic facilities. Among the major issues that should be thoroughly examined in the
future is whether the concept is needed with the rapidly advancing state-of-the-art, which produces
many quantifiable measures of service quality. The application of LoS to corridors, networks, and
multimodal systems needs to be addressed, as it will differ from previous applications to points and
Austroads 2012
— 43 —
uniform segments. Incorporating the results of research concerning user perceptions into the LoS
framework has also raised interesting issues as the HCM 2010 has been developed. With the
forthcoming HCM 2010 as a starting point, this paper explores current issues and makes
suggestions as to how to address them while moving toward the editions that will follow the
HCM 2010.
The report by Dowling et al. (TRB 2008) presents the results of a 2-year investigation into how
users of urban streets perceive the multimodal quality of service provided by the streets. A
preliminary investigation was conducted to determine the key factors influencing traveller
perceptions of urban street LoS from the perspective of auto drivers, bus riders, bicycle riders, and
pedestrians. The results of this preliminary investigation were used to design a series of video
laboratories (for auto, bicycle, and pedestrian modes) and field surveys (for the bus mode). Four
separate LoS models (one for each mode) were then fitted to the video laboratory and field survey
data. All four LoS models were sensitive to the street design (e.g. number of lanes, widths, and
landscaping), traffic control devices (signal timing, speed limits), and traffic volumes. The models
incorporated directly and indirectly the interactions of the various users of the street.
The LoS models are ideal for evaluating the benefits of ‘complete streets’ and ‘context sensitive’
design options because the models quantify the interactions of the modes sharing the same street
right-of-way. The models enable the analyst to test the tradeoffs of various allocations of the urban
street cross-section among autos, buses, bicycles, and pedestrians. The method enables the
analyst to compute the before and after levels of service for auto, bus, bicycle, and pedestrians. A
spreadsheet software engine was written to assist analysts in applying the LoS methods. A User’s
Guide was written explaining the LoS models and their application, in a format suitable for
incorporation into the Highway Capacity Manual. The Final Report describes the development of
the LoS models, while the User’s Guide focuses on explaining the application of the models with
detailed descriptions of each model and example applications.
4.5.2 Multimodal Approach

The purpose of the research project by Phillips, Karachepone and Landis (2001) was to develop a
quality of service analysis for transit, pedestrian, and bicycle modes. The four major objectives
that shaped the research agenda were:
 to perform a national literature search of multi-modal level of service methodologies in order
to implement the best possible methodology in Florida
 to apply and validate bicycle level of service and roadside pedestrian condition techniques to
measure the performance of corridor segments in two districts
 to apply and test new Highway Capacity Manual performance measures for transit in test
districts
 to refine and evaluate latent bicycle and pedestrian demand model processes in order to
determine that adequate demand exists for proposed facility improvements.
The goal of the Crider, Burden and Han (2001) study was to extend the multimodal LoS research
effort addressing specific measures that affect the user at the ‘points’ of their journey. For the
transit user, this relates to the actual bus stop, the point where they embark or disembark on their
journey. For the bicyclist and pedestrian, this is the point of transition, from segment to segment or
to destination, and generally relates to a crossing point either midblock or at an intersection.
Techniques for identifying measures were garnered through an extensive literature review and
appropriate measures were selected and identified for transit, bike and pedestrian modes.
Additionally, a transit infrastructure (amenities) use survey was distributed to 500 bus riders and
analysed for weighting of importance of various transit infrastructure.
Austroads 2012
— 44 —
Over the decade 2000 to 2010, the pedestrian level of service model for roadway segments,
developed for the Florida Department of Transportation in 2001, has become a leading method for
evaluating walking conditions along roadways throughout North America. The model has been
tested and applied on hundreds of thousands of miles of roads, sometimes under conditions
atypical of the original dataset. Two examples include central business districts in very large
metropolitan areas and very low volume collector/local streets. Focused testing in these
environments occurred during the evaluation of the model as part of National Cooperative Highway
Research Program 3-70 (TRB 2008). Petritsch, McLeod, Landis and McLeod (2010) discuss
proposed refinements to the pedestrian LoS model for urban streets which may be included in the
next Highway Capacity Manual. Their application should be considered by practitioners for
ongoing evaluations of urban street pedestrian LoS.
Petritsch, Landis, Huang and Dowling (2008) developed and tested a framework and enhanced
methods for determining levels of service for the automobile, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes
on urban streets. This paper presents the proposed LoS model for arterials. This effort represents
a progressive shift in evaluating the quality of service from a provider based measure (how many
vehicles/pedestrians can we move and how fast) to a user based measure (how well do
drivers/pedestrians feel the facility meets their needs). To obtain feedback from potential
pedestrian facility users, data for the model were obtained from participants in video simulation
laboratories. The participants watched video clips of roadways and intersections and provided
their ratings as to how well the depicted roadways and intersections would meet their needs as
pedestrians. The proposed model consists of a pedestrian density LoS and a pedestrian
non-density LoS. The density LoS is computed according to the methods provided in the Highway
Capacity Manual. The non-density LoS is a function of the pedestrian LoS of roadway segments,
the pedestrian LoS of intersections, and the roadway crossing difficulty factor.
The Danish Road Directorate sponsored a study, Jensen (2007) to develop methods for objectively
quantifying pedestrian and bicyclist stated satisfaction with road sections between intersections.
The results provide a measure of how well urban and rural roads accommodate pedestrian and
bicycle travel. To determine how existing traffic operations, geometric conditions, and other
variables affect pedestrians' and bicyclists' satisfaction, 407 randomly selected Danes were shown
video clips from 56 roadway segments filmed by a pedestrian walking and a bicyclist riding along
the road. Respondents rated the roadway segments on a six-point scale ranging from very
dissatisfied to very satisfied. This resulted in 7724 pedestrian ratings and 7596 bicyclist ratings.
Roadway segments and video clips were described by 150 variables. Pedestrian and bicyclist
satisfaction models were developed by cumulative logit regression of the ratings and the variables.
The models included variables that related significantly to the satisfaction ratings. Variables that
significantly influenced the level of satisfaction were motorised traffic volume and speed; urban
land uses; rural landscapes; the types and widths of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; the numbers
and widths of the drive lanes; the volumes of pedestrians, bicyclists, and parked cars; and the
presence of medians, trees, and bus stops. The models returned the percentage splits of the six
levels of satisfaction. These splits were then transformed into a level of service. The models
provide traffic planners and others the ability to rate roadways according to pedestrians' and
bicyclists' satisfaction and may be used in the process of evaluating existing roads, designing new
roads, or redesigning existing roads.
Landis et al. (2001) acknowledged that a method is needed to objectively quantify pedestrians'
perceptions of safety and comfort in the roadside environment. This quantification, or
mathematical relationship, would provide a measure of how well roadways accommodate
pedestrian travel. Essentially, it would provide a measure of pedestrian LoS within a roadway
environment. Such a measure of walking conditions would greatly aid in roadway cross-sectional
design and would help evaluate and prioritise the needs of existing roadways for sidewalk retrofit
Austroads 2012
— 45 —
construction. The measure can be used to evaluate traffic-calming strategies and streetscape
designs for their effectiveness in improving the pedestrian environment. Such a measure would
make it possible to merge pedestrian facility programming into the mainstream of transportation
planning, design, and construction. To meet the need for such a method, as well as to fulfil a state
mandate to establish levels of service standards for all transportation modes, the Florida
Department of Transportation sponsored the development of the Pedestrian LoS Model. The
model was developed through a stepwise multivariable regression analysis of 1250 observations
from an event that placed 75 people on a roadway walking course in the Pensacola metropolitan
area. The model incorporates the statistically significant roadway and traffic variables that
describe pedestrians' perceptions of safety or comfort in the roadway environment between
intersections. It is similar in approach to methods used to assess automobile operators' level of
service established in the Highway Capacity Manual.
Flannery, Ali and Cristei (2010) state that complete street designs are becoming increasingly
popular and sought by engineers and planners to accommodate all users on urban arterials. To
address analysis needs, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 3-70 was
developed to assist engineers and planners understand the implications of design and operational
choices on the perceived level of service of travellers on urban arterials. This was a six year
project that gathered input from four modes of travel on urban arterials: auto, pedestrian, bicycle,
and fixed route transit. Data were gathered for the pedestrian, bicycle, and auto modes using
video simulation techniques from four locations: Oakland, CA; Chicago, IL; New Haven, CT; and
College Station, TX. The study included 145 participants ranging in age and gender. Models were
developed for each of the modes and an overall methodology developed to analyse multimodal
level of service for urban arterials. This study seeks to utilise a new modelling approach for the
pedestrian level of service data to develop a cumulative logistic model that describes the entire
distribution of pedestrian level of service under a given set of conditions. Previous models utilised
simple linear regression with mean observations to estimate pedestrian level of service. The
advantages of the newly developed model include a simplification of the required input variables
and the ability to better estimate pedestrian level of service as is demonstrated in the validation
process.
Hubbard, Awwad and Bullock (2007) indicate that the Highway Capacity Manual provides two
methods, based on delay and space, for the assessment of pedestrian level of service at
signalised intersections. Current procedures for evaluating pedestrian LoS are examined, and
results indicate that these procedures do not adequately reflect the negative impact of turning
vehicles. Pedestrian LoS measures are proposed to reflect not only pedestrian delay and space
but also traffic interruptions, freedom of movement, and comfort. These measures are consistent
with LoS measures currently used for freeway segments and ramp merge areas. The percentage
of compromised pedestrian crossings is proposed as a means to quantify the negative impact of
turning vehicles on pedestrian service and as a LoS measure at signalised intersections. A
pedestrian crossing is designated as compromised if a pedestrian is delayed or is forced to change
travel path or speed in response to a turning vehicle. The percentage of compromised pedestrian
crossings was assessed for 13 crosswalks. Results of the assessments illustrate that as right-turn
volumes increase, the percentage of compromised pedestrian crossings increases. The proposed
method provides an objective engineering tool for measuring the impact of turning vehicles on
pedestrian service. It may be appropriate to use this measure to quantify the need for pedestrian
improvements (for example, if the percentage compromised exceeds 15%, then it may be
appropriate to implement a leading pedestrian interval or other enhancement).
Hubbard, Bullock and Mannering (2009) indicate that traditional pedestrian level of service
measures at signalised intersections are based on pedestrian space and pedestrian delay.
However, these measures may not adequately reflect the negative impact of right-turning traffic on
Austroads 2012
— 46 —
pedestrians. This paper presents a statistical analysis using a binary logit model that provides new
insights into the factors that affect the likelihood that a pedestrian is compromised (delayed, altered
their travel path, or altered their travel speed) in response to traffic turning right (on green) during
concurrent vehicle/pedestrian signal timing. The statistical analysis indicates that a number of
factors affect the likelihood of a pedestrian being compromised including pedestrian direction of
travel, right-turn traffic volume, number of pedestrians crossing, whether the pedestrian arrived late
and began crossing after the end of the walk interval, and the crosswalk characteristics including
location (downtown versus suburban) and one-way/two-way streets.
The Kim et al. (2008) study is an extension of work done for the Waikiki Business Improvement
District Association related to measuring the impacts of changes in the physical environment on
pedestrian level of service. The study estimates the impacts of various types of street furniture –
both fixed and movable items – on pedestrian level of service. The authors consider typical items
such as benches, bicycle racks, planter boxes, trees, mail boxes, brochure bins, trash cans, as
well as other potential additions to the sidewalk areas such as vending and coffee carts and tables
and chairs. These various types of street furniture were measured and observational surveys were
conducted to estimate the volume of use during the peak times. Using a typical high volume
pedestrian location with observed volumes, the impact of the street furniture on pedestrian level of
service is estimated. Estimates are provided for the following: 1) the maximum pedestrian volume
that can be accommodated with the added street furniture and still maintain a passable LoS rating
of B; 2) the minimum sidewalk width necessary to maintain LoS rating B with increases of
pedestrian volumes of 10%, 20%, and 30%; and 3) for coffee carts and vending carts, the number
of customers that can be accommodated and still maintain a LoS rating of B. The findings suggest
that different street furniture has different types of impacts and that designers and planners need to
consider not only the dimensions of the street furniture, but also the sidewalk width, pedestrian
volumes, and the potential number of users or customers.
Sisiopiku and Byrd (2006) describe how the level of service concept has been traditionally used to
assess quality of operations of transportation facilities. The 2000 Highway Capacity Manual
(HCM 2000) offers level of service criteria for pedestrian facilities based on measures similar to
those used for motorised LoS. However, the multi-faceted aspects involved in pedestrian
movements can be more intricate than the movements of other modes. This paper reviews,
compares, and contrasts some of the more commonly accepted methods for determining
pedestrian LoS for sidewalks to see if they are comparable or relatable, as well as to determine
which methods are more reliable, or easier to use. A case study was performed in which field data
were collected and used to implement the procedures described in the reviewed methodologies
and to compare the LoS obtained from each. The comparison provides useful information on the
consistency of outcomes from the various methodologies, and identifies needs for modifications
and improvements.
Sarkar (2003) developed a method for the qualitative evaluation of comfort levels offered among
walkways in major activity centres. A comfortable pedestrian circulation system within the street
network is the focus. Healthy street circulation systems should offer choices for the movement of
people, particularly for walking and bicycling modes. The paper examined the attributes of comfort
in a pedestrian circulation system and developed an evaluation method by conducting qualitative
explorations and drawing on existing literature along with examples of comfortable pedestrian
spaces in the United States and Europe. This method involved two evaluation components:
(1) service levels give standards for the overall desirable and undesirable comfort conditions at the
macro level; and (2) quality levels look at finer details of comfort of pedestrians at the micro level.
The method was tested in several streets in Philadelphia. It is suggested that the evaluation
method is useful in providing analysis of the macro- and micro-level comfort conditions on the
walkways, enabling professionals to assign priority for renovation and redesign of the surveyed
Austroads 2012
— 47 —
streets, providing useful information to transit agencies, and generating information for geographic
information system maps.
Baltes and Chu (2002) developed a level-of-service methodology for pedestrians crossing streets
at midblock locations. The methodology can provide a measure of effectiveness that indicates
pedestrians' perceived quality of service in crossing roads at midblock locations. An objective was
to determine what variables are correlated with pedestrians' perceived quality of service for
midblock crossings. A statistical calibration and validation process involved the collection of actual
site characteristics and stated levels of quality of service by a sample of persons at a selection of
midblock crossing locations. The variables included those that are most important to state and
local governments for the purpose of improving pedestrian mobility, safety, and liveability. Results
showed that the levels of crossing difficulty tend to increase with the width of painted medians,
signal spacing, and turning movements. They also showed that both the presence of pedestrian
signals and cycle length are statistically significant, although they were hypothesised to be
indeterminate. Finally, the results further indicated that people tend to find that the presence of
pedestrian signals lowers their level of crossing difficulty.
Winters et al. (2001) focussed on identifying the feasibility of, and methods toward, a LoS system
that can be assessed equally for the motor vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes.
Interviews conducted with key stakeholders were used to identify how LoS measures found could
be used to assess existing conditions, identify roadways in need of improvement, and prioritise
construction projects. It was concluded that the current methods of describing levels of service are
appropriate for their mode, understandable by broad audiences, and professionally defensible. It
was also agreed that a system of measuring level of service equally across modes would be of
significant value to policymakers, developers and the transportation industry. A systematic
creative thinking technique was applied to identify and assess different concepts and approaches
to use to develop a common LoS system. An approach for a pilot project to identify, construct and
apply a transportation system user hierarchy of needs was proposed.
Unlike the case with airport terminals or the central business district, the quality of suburban
pedestrian facilities is most likely affected less by congestion and more by safety, the walking
environment, and aesthetics. Miller, Bigelow and Garber (2000) proposed innovative rating scales
to explicitly capture such factors when measuring pedestrian level of service. These scales use
either measurable characteristics, such as walkway width, median openings, and signalisation
parameters, or user perceptions, such as continuity and convenience, to rate a pedestrian facility.
A scaling system was developed for pedestrian LoS and calibrated using visualisation
(computer-aided modelling techniques consisting of still photographs and animations). Subjects'
perceived ratings of a pedestrian facility after they viewed still pictures and animations of the facility
were compared with the computed rating of the facility from a LoS scale. This method helps
ensure that pedestrian crossing needs are systematically considered and that engineers, planners,
and the public agree on the calibration of a pedestrian LoS scale. The methodology is also
applicable in urban areas where pedestrian needs beyond physical capacity are to be explicitly
considered. The approach is original in that visualisation as a simulation and data analysis tool
was used to calibrate a pedestrian LoS scale.
4.5.3 Tools, Evaluation and Assessment

In New Zealand the Community Street Review (CSR) process has been developed to assess the
level of walkability of footpaths and road crossings (Abley & Turner 2011). This method involves
taking a group of pedestrians along a route consisting of a number of footpath sections and road
crossings and asking them to rate across a number of factors (e.g. safe from falling and safe from
traffic) how they felt on a scale of 1 to 7. Based on the ratings across the group and each factor,
each section is given an average walkability score.
Austroads 2012
— 48 —
Reid (2006) describes the challenges associated with assessing the quality of pedestrian networks
and facilities, in particular the diverse nature of pedestrians and their sensitivity to subjective
influences. It describes the ways in which those challenges were addressed during development
of the pedestrian environment review system (PERS) by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL).
The paper describes PERS and gives examples of its application and use to conduct pedestrian
network quality analysis. The benefits and limitations of the approach and lessons learnt in
applying pedestrian reviews are discussed in a number of contexts. The paper concludes that the
diversity of pedestrian capabilities and purposes in the public realm requires that subjective factors
be incorporated into a review system; this, however, poses substantial difficulties for an objective
and replicable review system
Allen and Clark (2007) discuss the use of PERS, its capabilities, perspectives on walking and the
lessons learned from applying the tool extensively across Greater London in the past year.
Pedestrian movement and the importance of streetscapes have been recognised within national
and local UK policy and a method was required to effectively assess these types of environment
and to identify ways to encourage people to use them. The PERS provides local authorities with a
quick and effective method for reviewing all types of pedestrian space and identifying where
improvements are most needed. TRL has worked with Transport for London (TfL) to further
expand upon the capabilities of PERS. PERS reviews have been applied across Greater London
as part of TfL’s drive to better understand the condition of all pedestrian environments.
The PERS audit tool has been applied to an assessment of the quality of the pedestrian
environment along an arterial road in Melbourne (Kartsidimas & Ronquillo 2010). It was concluded
that the tool could be adapted for use in such conditions, but that further refinement to details such
as parameter weightings would be needed for more universal application. PERS has also been
examined in NZ, but development of walkability assessment tools in that country has concentrated
on refinement of the Community Street Review (CSR) process and its quantification (Abley &
Turner 2011).
Kelly et al. (2007) present the results of a research project conducted in the UK designed to
increase understanding of the factors which influence levels of walking and pedestrian route
choice. It describes a number of techniques that were used to assess the pedestrian environment
from a pedestrian’s perspective. These techniques included a computer based tool developed
using stated preference surveys to determine the relative values of a range of factors in the
pedestrian environment; an on-street survey that was designed to investigate values and attitudes
towards different attributes of the pedestrian environment along a route; and finally an ‘on the
move survey’ where pedestrian volunteers were interviewed while walking along the route in order
to get an account of their experiences as they walk. A case study was then used to show the
benefits and disadvantages of using these different techniques and compare the results of the
three techniques along a pedestrian route in the City of Leeds. This comparison showed that there
were a number of pedestrian attributes considered important by pedestrians when walking
including pavement cleanliness, safe crossing places, and good connectivity.
The Gallin (2001) study in Western Australia aimed to develop guidelines for assessing the level of
service of pedestrian facilities in Western Australia. Guidelines existed for assessing vehicular
traffic LoS and cycling LoS, and the formulation of LoS guidelines for pedestrians was aimed at
completing the LoS framework. Pedestrian LoS was defined as an overall measure of walking
conditions on a route, path, or facility, and was linked directly to factors that affect mobility, comfort,
and safety, reflecting pedestrians' perceptions of the degree to which the facility is 'pedestrian
friendly'. These factors fall into three categories: physical characteristics, location factors, and user
factors. These factors were weighted by relative importance and a LoS scale was developed to
describe the LoS of pedestrian routes. Pedestrian conditions are described through a LoS grade
Austroads 2012
— 49 —
from LoS A (ideal pedestrian conditions) to LoS E (unsuitable pedestrian conditions), based on an
assessment of the factors affecting LoS. The assessment includes desktop and on-site
assessment of LoS factors. The development of the model was an iterative process that involved
testing and refinement. The research undertaken and the LoS model developed provide a sound
basis for the ongoing measurement of LoS for pedestrians. The model not only provides the
opportunity to test the LoS provided by a pedestrian route, but also determines which factors
contribute to low and high LoS.
Setter and Stewart (2002) stated that warrants for the installation of pedestrian facilities used in
Australia and overseas, have traditionally been based upon vehicular and pedestrian volumes, but
do not address the complexities of other relevant variables. Following a comprehensive literature
review on pedestrian guidelines within Australia and overseas, a new set of warrants Pedestrian
Facility Guidelines & Prioritisation Point System was developed, including new guidelines and a
point allocation system based, primarily, on pedestrian waiting time. The guidelines also take into
account varying road widths, vehicular arrival patterns, impact on the road network, community
sizes, crash history, sight distances and other factors relevant to the provision of adequate
pedestrian facilities. The priority point system is an innovative quantitative and qualitative analysis,
and involves the allocation of points to each of these factors, according to the conditions and
characteristics of the selected site, allowing for the assessment and quantification of the pedestrian
crossing difficulty at a particular location. It is incorporated into a technical manual (QTMR 2011),
as discussed in Section 3.5.2.
4.6 Summary
The main features identified from the review of literature, emerging practice and recent guideline
developments may be summarised as follows:
 greater recognition of the importance of walking, from health, social, environmental, transport
and economic perspectives
 greater emphasis in road network planning and urban design on providing facilities for
pedestrian activity
 enhanced understanding of walking activity, not just as a transport mode, and the need to
reflect this in associated measurement and survey techniques
 acknowledgement of the need for guidance on pedestrian facilities which takes into account
the needs and perceptions of pedestrians
 development of tools and techniques for assessing the quality of the walking environment,
which lead to improved methods for determining the level (or quality) of service provided to
pedestrians in the road environment
 development of a multimodal approach – considering pedestrian, cyclist and public transport
issues in addition to vehicular traffic – for assessing the level of service of roadway facilities.
Austroads 2012
— 50 —
5 REVISED GUIDANCE
5.1 Areas of Need
The material on pedestrian facilities in the current Austroads Guides has certain deficiencies, of
which the primary elements are:
 Some of the original guidance material from GTEP 13 has not been captured, particularly the
material on pedestrian level of service; other details are given in Appendix A.
 The more recent developments in provision and analysis of pedestrian facilities, as
discussed in Section 3 and Section 4, are not included or need greater emphasis.
This has implications for revision of material in several volumes of the Guides. The general
requirements for areas of guidance are summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Requirements for areas of guidance

Area of guidance needing enhancement General approach Relevant Guides
Consideration of pedestrians in planning, Provide greater emphasis on accommodating GTM Parts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
provision and management of facilities. pedestrian activity in planning and design. GRD Parts 2, 6A
Provide summary description of the Safe GRS Parts 1, 2, 4
System concept, and emphasise the GRTP
vulnerability of pedestrians.
Assessing quality of walking environment and Outline basic determination of pedestrian level GTM Parts 3, 5, 6
determining level of service of facilities. of service. GRD Parts 2, 6A
Outline pedestrian activity and perceptions,
and methods for assessing walkability.
Outline pedestrian aspects of multimodal
approach to determining level of service.
Details for the design and management of Provide more detail regarding pedestrian GTM Parts 5, 6
pedestrian facilities. activity and facility needs. GRD Part 4
GRS Part 2
Measuring pedestrian activity. Outline improved methods for planning and GTM Part 3
undertaking surveys of pedestrian activity.
5.2 Amendments to Documents

5.2.1 Approach
The proposed overall approach to enhancing the pedestrian facilities guidance given in the
Austroads Guides is to ensure that the most recent developments are included. Essential
elements of guidance should be presented, and reference made to other documents for details
where necessary. Where there are separate technical documents developed by agencies in
Australia or New Zealand, and their content is potentially applicable more broadly, this should be
summarised and duly referenced, rather than providing a repeat of material.
The main focus in this report is on the amendments necessary for the Guide to Traffic
Management (GTM), the details of which are presented in the following section. Those proposed
for Parts 3 and 6 of the GTM are drafted in a form ready for insertion into those Parts, in view of
the general reviews of those documents being undertaken via concurrent projects. Those
Austroads 2012
— 51 —
amendments proposed for other Parts of the GTM are similarly drafted but may undergo further
development when those Parts are subject to detailed reviews in future.
The major new material for the GTM will be:

 reference to recent local developments in providing for pedestrian activity in road network
planning
 measurement of walkability as an essential element in assessing quality of the pedestrian
environment
 description of the multimodal approach, especially the pedestrian component, in assessing
the level of service of roadway facilities.
A general requirement has also been identified: to ensure that the various Parts of the GTM
present information on the Safe System philosophy underlying contemporary road safety
management. While the fundamentals of the approach and its implications for traffic management
are presented in GTM Part 13 (Road Environment Safety), it is appropriate to emphasise it in other
Parts of the Guide. In the context of the present review of pedestrian-related guidance, there are
opportunities to outline the Safe System approach as the basis for addressing the particular
vulnerability of pedestrians in the traffic environment.
Related amendments to other Austroads Guides (GRD, GRS and GRTP) are also identified.
These are drafted and included in this report for consideration when the relevant Parts of those
Guides become due for detailed review.
5.2.2 Proposed Revised Material

Details of specific sections within the relevant Guides that need to incorporate amended or
additional text are outlined in Table 5.2.
The proposed draft material for incorporation into the Guides is included in Appendices to this
report as follows:
 the Guide to Traffic Management (GTM) – Appendix C
 the Guide to Road Design (GRD) – Appendix D
 the Guide to Road Safety (GRS) – Appendix E
 the Guide to Road Transport Planning (GRTP) – Appendix F.
Austroads 2012
— 52 —
Table 5.2: Sections of Guides for enhanced pedestrian guidance
Area of guidance
needing General approach Relevant Guides/Parts Guide sections for enhanced material
enhancement
Consideration of Provide greater GTM Part 3 Section 2.5.5 – add material on active living strategic context
pedestrians in emphasis on for pedestrian facilities, plus broad definition of walking
planning, provision accommodating activities.
and management of pedestrian activity in Part 4 Section 4.7.1 – add material on broader approach to walking
facilities. planning and design.
and implications for facilities; add material on Safe System
approach as related to pedestrians.
Provide summary
Part 5 Section 1.2 – add material on active living strategic context
description of the Safe
as factor in balancing road functions.
System concept, and
emphasise the Part 6 Section 1 – add new sub-section (1.3) on Safe System
vulnerability of approach as related to intersections and vehicle-pedestrian
pedestrians. conflicts.
Part 7 Commentary C3.6 – add material on recent developments in
shared spaces.
Part 8 Section 7.5.7 – add material on shared spaces compared
with shared zones.
GRD Part 2 Section 1.4 – add material on Safe System approach as
related to pedestrians.
Section 1.9 – add material on active living strategic context
for pedestrian facilities; and note on need for sharing
facilities in some cases.
Section 2.4.1 – add material on need to consider road user
hierarchy also, and influence on road design.
Part 6A Section 1.3 – add material on Safe System approach as
specifically related to pedestrians.
GRS Part 1 Section 2.3 – add material on importance of measuring
safety for different road user groups, use pedestrians as
example; add note on need for specific travel/activity
exposure data.
Part 2 Section 3.4 – add material on increased walking focus and
need for data on walking activity.
Section 3.7 – add material on health/active living strategic
focus.
Appendix A – add material about particular vulnerability of
pedestrians.
Part 4 Section 1.3 – add material on particular implications for
pedestrians in managing local roads.
GRTP Section 1.3 – add material on active living strategic context
for change in transport planning policy direction.
Austroads 2012
— 53 —
Area of guidance
needing General approach Relevant Guides/Parts Guide sections for enhanced material
enhancement
Assessing quality of Outline basic GTM Part 3 Add new section (3.4) on pedestrian LoS, developments in
walking determination of HCM 2010 and assessment of walkability, plus tools for
environment and pedestrian level of auditing/assessing facilities.
determining level of service.
Part 5 Table 3.2 – add material on selection of facilities on basis of
service of facilities. LoS and other factors; correct reference to warrants.
Outline pedestrian
Part 6 Section 8.2 – add material on selection of pedestrian
activity and
facilities based on LoS.
perceptions, and
methods for assessing GRD Part 2 Commentary T – add material on pedestrian LoS and need
walkability. to include other factors; update HCM references to 2010
edition.
Outline pedestrian Part 6A Section 6.2.1 – add note that pedestrian LoS involves more
aspects of multimodal than space and volume factors.
approach to
determining level of
service.
Details for the Provide more detail GTM Part 5 Table 3.1 – add material on shared spaces.
design and regarding pedestrian Table 3.2 - add material on signalised pedestrian crossing
management of activity and facility facilities.
pedestrian facilities. needs.
Part 6 Section 4.5.3 – add material on pedestrians at roundabouts.
Section 8.1.2 - add material re catering for pedestrians with
disabilities.
Table 8.1 – add material on shared spaces.
Add new sub-section in 8.2 on signalised facilities - pelican
and puffin crossings, countdown timers.
Section 8.3 – add reference to pedestrian-cyclist conflict on
shared paths.
GRD Part 4 Section 8.2.4 – amend material on kerb ramp design.
GRS Part 2 Section 3.4 – add material on need for additional data on
walking travel characteristics.
Measuring Outline improved GTM Part 3 Appendix E – add material on survey techniques, including
pedestrian activity. methods for planning technologies, for measuring walking.
and undertaking
surveys of pedestrian
activity.
Austroads 2012
— 54 —
6 FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
The work undertaken in this project did not include development of detailed procedures or tools for
the selection and assessment of particular pedestrian facilities. However, the general approaches
that should be adopted in emerging best practice have been outlined. These include:
 taking greater account of the perceptions and preferences of pedestrians in assessing
facilities and
 adapting the major developments in assessing pedestrian facilities, particularly in terms of
the levels of service (LoS) provided for pedestrians.
Further work is required for the development of a comprehensive tool for assessing all possible
types of pedestrian facilities.
6.1 Considerations for Development of a Tool

The primary relevant advances in assessing pedestrian facilities were identified as:
 the HCM 2010 material on pedestrian LoS in the multimodal LoS context
 the NZ Guide material (and underlying spreadsheet analysis) focusing on LoS and the CSR
approach
 the Queensland point score, spreadsheet analysis and prioritisation approach
 the UK evaluation system PERS.
The essential features of these tools have been summarised and referenced in this report.
Each system is based on a (different) mixture of measured data and professional judgment, and
tackles only part of the pedestrian facility environment. The focus for the above approaches has
been primarily in terms of LoS rather than safety per se, although safety issues have been included
in some approaches.
The NZ system appears to be the most comprehensive, and the NZ work to date has identified
further work to measure essential inputs and validate the system, but it is understood that no such
further work is current.
The HCM approach is developed primarily for a footpath in parallel with a road facility, and for
crossing at a signalised facility. Application of the HCM approach and the PERS system to the
Australian and New Zealand setting is untested in detail.
6.2 Development of an Assessment Tool

A comprehensive assessment tool which combines elements of the separate approaches identified
above may be envisaged. The applicability of the elements to the Australian and New Zealand
context would need to be assessed, initially on the basis of available data and professional
experience, and ultimately through objective validation.
Development of a tool along these lines, as a further project, would involve the following:
 examining the details of the separate approaches listed above
 determining the range of pedestrian facilities to which the separate approaches apply
Austroads 2012
— 55 —
 determining the applicable algorithms and the data (or other information) requirements
needed for the models
 assessing the various models and comparing their outputs, using available input data
 integrating crash reduction factors into the LoS-based models associated with
implementation of various facilities
 documenting the potential for a combined model, including gaps needing to be addressed
 assessing the scope and further development of a combined model via a workshop of
experienced practitioners
 identifying gaps in the applicability of the combined model
 identifying further work necessary to extend and validate the combined model.
Any detailed validation of the model for local application would be a further separate piece of work
beyond the above.
It is envisaged that an ‘Australian/NZ Pedestrian LoS Assessment Tool’ would be applicable to a

range of sites including road lengths, midblock locations and intersections, and would contain
mechanisms for the following:
 entering relevant data and other information for a specific site
 refining criteria for pedestrian LoS outputs pertinent to the site
 adjusting weightings for particular types of site
 calculating LoS scores or indices for particular pedestrian facilities under consideration
 integrating crash or casualty reduction potential for facilities under consideration
 presenting predicted outcomes for different pedestrian facilities.
The output from the project would be:

 the tool, envisaged as a spreadsheet-based electronic software system
 an accompanying user guide for the tool
 a project report documenting the development of the tool, its application and limitations.
Austroads 2012
— 56 —
7 CONCLUSION
7.1 Enhanced Guidance
A review of recent developments in the consideration of pedestrian activity and facilities has
confirmed the need for incorporating enhanced guidance in the Austroads Guides.
There has been an increasing recognition of walking as a mode of travel in planning elements of
the road network, important developments in the measurement of pedestrian activity and the
emergence of enhanced guidance for the provision and assessment of pedestrian facilities. These
developments need to be reflected in revisions to the Austroads Guides.
Several volumes in the various guides need to be amended to ensure that an appropriate
recognition of pedestrian activity is included and that details of related design, management and
analysis procedures are outlined.
The primary need is for amendment to the Guide to Traffic Management Part 3, particularly with
respect to taking account of the pedestrian mode in determining LoS. Greater attention needs to
be paid to pedestrian needs and perceptions in assessing the quality of their environment, and the
consequential changes for providing and managing related facilities.
There is also a need for some amendment to other guides to emphasise the importance of
considering pedestrian activity. Those volumes and sections of guides in need of amendment are
identified and additional or revised text is proposed.
7.2 Assessment Tool

A review of the tools and techniques emerging for assessing the pedestrian environment and
evaluating proposed or existing pedestrian facilities has identified the need to develop a
comprehensive tool.
Developments in tools focusing on the quality of the walking environment, pedestrian level of
service and safety considerations have been identified in New Zealand, Australia, UK and US.
There is a need to develop these approaches further, integrating and adapting the techniques for
application in Australia and New Zealand.
The development of such a tool, applicable to a range of pedestrian facilities, has been outlined. It
is envisaged that the tool would comprise a spreadsheet-based electronic software system with
facilities for data input and adjustment factors pertinent to the types of pedestrian facilities being
considered.
7.3 Recommendations
It is recommended that:
 the relevant volumes of the Austroads Guides be amended as proposed in Appendix C to
Appendix F of this report, and
 a comprehensive pedestrian facilities assessment tool be developed as outlined in Section 6.
Austroads 2012
— 57 —
REFERENCES
AASHTO 2004, Guide for planning, design and operation of pedestrian facilities, American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA.
AASHTO 2011, A policy on the design of highways and streets, 6th edn, American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington DC, USA.
Abley, S & Turner, S 2011, Predicting walkability, report 452, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ.
Allen, D & Clark, S 2007, ‘New directions in street auditing: lessons from the PERS audits’, International
conference on walking and liveable communities, 8th, 2007, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Access
Associates, UK, 10pp.
ATC 2011, National road safety strategy 2011-2020, Australian Transport Council, Canberra, ACT, viewed
21 May 2012, <www.atcouncil.gov.au/documents/atcnrss.aspx>.
Attaset, V, Schneider, RJ, Arnold, LS & Ragland, DR 2010, ‘Effects of weather variables on pedestrian
volumes in Alameda county, California’, Transportation Research Board 89th annual meeting,
Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA, 18pp.
Aultman, HL, Lane, D & Lambert, RR 2009, ‘Assessing the impact of weather and season on pedestrian
traffic volumes’, Transportation Research Board 88th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC, USA, 21pp.
Austroads 2006. Pedestrian-cyclist conflict minimisation on shared paths and footpaths, AP-R287/06.
Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008-2009, Guide to traffic management, AGTM set: parts 1-13, , Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2008-2011, Guide to road design, AGRD set: parts 1-8, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2006-2009, Guide to road safety, AGRS set parts 1-9, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2009, Guide to road transport planning, AGRTP09, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Austroads 2010, Cycling aspects of Austroads guides, AP-G88/11, Austroads, Sydney, NSW.
Baltes, MR & Chu, X 2002, ‘Pedestrian level of service for midblock street crossings’, Transportation
Research Record, no.1818, pp. 125-133.
Burke, M, Sipe, N, Evans, R & Mellifont, R. 2006, ‘Climate, geography and the propensity to walk:
environmental factors and walking trip rates in Brisbane’, Australasian Transport Research Forum
(ATRF), 29th, 2006, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, Queensland Transport, Brisbane, QLD, 17pp.
Cairney, P, Zivanovic, A, Pyta, V & Walsh, K 2010, ‘Trial of countdown timers: pedestrian behaviours and
perceptions’, contract report 002189, ARRB Group, Vermont South, Vic.
Candappa, N, Fotheringham, N, Lenne, M, Corben, B, Johansson, C & Smith, P 2005, ‘Evaluation of an

alternative pedestrian treatment at a roundabout’, Australasian Road Safety Research Policing
Education Conference, 2005, Wellington, New Zealand, Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ, 10pp.
Chu, X & Baltes, MR 2001, Pedestrian mid-block crossing difficulty,NCTR-392-09, National Center for
Transit Research (NCTR), University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Austroads 2012
— 58 —
Chu, X & Baltes, MR 2003, ‘Measuring pedestrian quality of service for midblock street crossings: selection
of potential determinants’, Transportation Research Record, no.1828, pp. 89-97.
Crider, LB, Burden, J & Han, F 2001, Multimodal LoS: 'point' level of service project: final report, Department
of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Florida., Gainesville, Florida, USA.
DfT 2007, Manual for streets, Department for Transport, London, UK.
DfT 2009, ‘Pedestrian guardrailing’, Local Transport Note, no. 2/09, Department for Transport, London, UK.
DfT 2011, ‘Shared space’, Local Transport Note, no. 1/11, Department for Transport, London, UK.
FHWA 2009, Manual on uniform traffic control devices for streets and highways, MUTCD-10, Federal
Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington DC, USA.
Flannery, A, Ali, A & Cristei, C 2010, ‘Cumulative logistic regression model for pedestrian level of service
rating’, Transportation Research Board 89th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board,
Washington DC, USA, 19 pp.
nd
Fruin, JJ 1987, Pedestrian planning and design, 2 edn, Elevator World, New York, USA.
Gallin, N 2001, ‘Quantifying pedestrian friendliness: guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service’,
Road and Transport Research, vol.10, no.1, pp.47-55.
Gehl Architects 2011, Major projects in Australia and Asia, webpage, Gehl Architects, Copenhagen,
Denmark, viewed 22 May 2012, < www.gehlarchitects.com/#/159799/>
Hubbard, SML, Awwad, RJ, Bullock, DM 2007, ‘Assessing the impact of turning vehicles on pedestrian level
of service at signalized intersections: a new perspective’, Transportation Research Record, no.2027,
pp.27-36.
Hubbard, SML, Bullock, DM, Mannering, FL 2009, ‘Right turns on green and pedestrian level of service:
statistical assessment’, Journal of Transportation Engineering, vol.135, no.4, pp.153-9.
Hutchinson, N 2011, ‘Improving pedestrian access across arterial roads’, State of Australian cities national
conference, Melbourne, Vic, Australian Sustainable Cities and Regions Network, viewed 22 May 2012,
<www.soac2011.com.au/full-papers-list.php>.
Jaskiewicz, F 2000, ‘Pedestrian level of service based on trip quality’, Transportation Research Circular, no
501, 14pp.
Jensen, SU 2007, ‘Pedestrian and bicyclist level of service on roadway segments’, Transportation Research
Record, no.2031, pp.43-51.
Kartsidimas, P & Ronquillo, J 2010, ‘The use of Pedestrian Environment Review System (PERS) software to
assess the quality of pedestrian environments’, Australian Institute of Traffic Planning and
Management (AITPM) national conference, 2010, Brisbane, Queensland, AIPTM, Blackwood, SA,
20pp.
Kelly, CE, Tight, MR, Page, MW & Hodgson, FC 2007, ‘Techniques for assessing the walkability of the
pedestrian environment’, International conference on walking and liveable communities, 8th, 2007,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, Access Associates, Tewkesbury, UK,13pp.
Kerryn Alexander Research 2006, Pedestrian service at traffic signals and pedestrian crossings, research
report, VicRoads, Kew, Vic.
Austroads 2012
— 59 —
Kim, K, Settachai, N, Yamashita, EY & Hallonquist, L 2008, ‘Sit, stand, or sell: the impact of street furniture
on pedestrian level of service’, Transportation Research Board 87th annual meeting, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, USA, 22pp.
King, W 2009, Trial of a new traffic control device: PUFFIN pedestrian crossing, Hutt City road & traffic report
June 2009, Hutt City Council, Wellington, NZ.
Landis, BW, Vattikuti, VR, Ottenberg, RM, McLeod, DS & Guttenplan, M 2001, ‘Modeling the roadside
walking environment: pedestrian level of service’, Transportation Research Record, no.1773, pp.82-8.
Levasseur, M, & Brisbane, G 2011, ‘Trial of pedestrian countdown timers in the Sydney CBD: final report’,
contract report 002878, ARRB Group, Ultimo, NSW.
Levasseur, M & McTiernan, D 2010, ‘Research into the application of pedestrian countdown timers in the
Sydney CBD’, contract report 001893, ARRB Group, Ultimo, NSW.
Lin, PS, Boudreau, AJ 2003, ‘Walk versus don't walk - improving the pedestrian experience’, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003 technical conference and exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, Florida,
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington DC, USA, 18pp.
Livi Smith, A 2009, ‘Contribution of perception in analysis of walking behavior’, Transportation Research
Board 88th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA, 19pp.
Methorst, R, Monterde i Bort, H, Risser, R, Sauter, D, Tight, M & Walker, J 2010, Pedestrians' quality needs,
final report COST project 358, Walk21, Cheltenham, UK.
Miller, JS, Bigelow, JA & Garber, NJ 2000, ‘Calibrating pedestrian level-of-service metrics with 3-D
visualization’, Transportation Research Record, no.1705, pp.9-15.
Muraleetharan, T & Hagiwara, T 2007, ‘Overall level of service of urban walking environment and its
influence on pedestrian route choice behavior: analysis of pedestrian travel in Sapporo, Japan’,
Transportation Research Record, no.2002, pp.7-17.
Murray, SJ & Walton, D 2009. Evaluation of a near-side PUFFIN display, report 09-528041, Opus Central
Laboratories, Lower Hutt, NZ.
NCUTLO 2000, Uniform vehicle code 2000, millennium edition, National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws
and Ordinances, Alexandria, VA, USA, viewed 22 May 2012, <www.ncutlo.org/index.html>
NZTA 2007, Pedestrian planning and design guide, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ, viewed 22 May
2012, <www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/>.
NZTA 2010, Guide to undertaking community street reviews, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ, viewed
22 May 2012, <www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/community-street-reviews/docs/csr-guide.pdf>.
OECD & European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) 2006, Speed management, OECD
Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland.
OECD & International Transport Forum (ITF) 2011, Pedestrian safety urban space and health, OECD
Publishing, Geneva, Switzerland.
Petritsch, TA, Landis, BW, Huang, HF & Dowling, RG 2008, ‘Pedestrian level-of-service model for arterials’,
Transportation Research Board 87th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA, 29pp.
Austroads 2012
— 60 —
Petritsch, TA, McLeod, PS, Landis, BW & McLeod, DS 2010, ‘Pedestrian level of service model for urban
streets’, Transportation Research Board 89th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA, 12pp.
Phillips, R, Karachepone, J & Landis, B 2001, Multi-modal quality of service project, Florida Department of
Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Planning Institute of Australia, 2009, Healthy spaces and places - a national guide to designing places for
healthy living, Planning Institute of Australia, Kingston, ACT, viewed 22 May 2012,
<www.healthyplaces.org.au/site/>.
Queensland Department of Main Roads (QDMR) 2002, Pedestrian detectors at midblock signalised
pedestrian crossings, Traffic and Road Use Management (TRUM) manual 2.6, Transport and Main
Roads, Brisbane, Queensland
Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (QTMR) 2011, Pedestrian crossing facility guidelines
and prioritisation system user guide, Traffic and Road Use Management TRUM manual 3.13,
Transport and Main Roads, Brisbane, Queensland.
Reid, S 2006, ‘Fit for purpose: evaluating walkability’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-
Engineering Sustainability, vol.161, no.ES2, pp.105-12.
Roess, RP, Vandehey, MA & Kittelson, W 2010, ‘Level of service – 2010 and beyond’, Transportation
Research Record, no.2173, pp.20-27.
Ovstedal, L & Ryeng, E 2002, ‘Understanding pedestrian comfort in European cities: how to improve walking
conditions’, The AET European Transport conference, Cambridge, UK, PTRC Education and
Research Services, London, UK.
Sanderson, SJ 2005, ‘Are we building what the mobility impaired really need?’, Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE) annual meeting, 2005, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), Washington, DC, USA, 13pp.
Sarkar, S 2003, ‘Qualitative evaluation of comfort needs in urban walkways in major activity centers’,
Transportation Quarterly, vol.57, no.4, pp. 39-59.
Sauter, D & Wedderburn, M 2008, ‘Measuring walking. Towards internationally standardised monitoring
methods of walking and public space’, 8th International conference on survey methods in transport,
Annecy, France, ISCTSC, France, viewed 22 May 2012,
<http://isctsc.let.fr/papiers/workshop%20final%20version/49%20A8%20Sauter%20and%20Wedderbur
n.pdf>.
Schlossberg, M, Agrawal, AW, Irvin, K & Bekkouche, VL 2007, How far, by which route, and why? A spatial
analysis of pedestrian preference, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, San
Jose, California, USA.
Setter, M & Stewart, D 2002, ‘Pedestrian facility guidelines and prioritisation points system’, Australian
Institute of Traffic Planning and Management (AITPM) National Conference, 2002, Perth, Western
Australia, AITPM, Thornleigh, NSW, pp.43-61.
Sisiopiku, VP & Akin, D 2003, ‘Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities:
an examination based on observation and survey data’, Transportation Research, Part F - Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, vol.6F, no.4, pp.249-74.
Austroads 2012
— 61 —
Sisiopiku, VP & Byrd, JE 2006, ‘Comparison of level-of-service methodologies for pedestrian sidewalks’,
Transportation Research Board 85th annual meeting, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA, 23pp.
SKM 2011, Making walking count: Canberra: city results report, SKM Colin Buchanan & Walk21, London,
UK, viewed 22 May 2012
<www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/243464/Making_Walking_Count.pdf>.
Sutherland, E, Murphy, M & Carlisle, R 2006, ‘Healthy by design: an innovative planning tool for the
development of safe, accessible and attractive environments for people to walk in’, International
conference on walking and liveable communities, 7th, 2006, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Access
Associates, Tewkesbury, UK, 14pp.
Tate, F & Waibl, GF2007, Pedestrian crossing selection calculation spreadsheet, Excel spreadsheet version
1.2, Land Transport New Zealand, Wellington, NZ, viewed 22 May 2012,
<http://www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/pedestrian-planning-guide/resources.html>.
Transport for London 2005, Improving walkability - good practice guidance on improving pedestrian
conditions as part of development opportunities, Transport for London, UK.
TRB 2000, Highway capacity manual 2000, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC, USA.
TRB 2008, Multimodal level of service anaysis for urban streets, NCHRP report 616, Transportation
Research Board, Washington DC, USA
TRB 2010a, HCM2010: highway capacity manual, 5th edn, Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, USA.
TRB 2010b, Roundabouts: an informational guide, NCHRP report 672, Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC, USA.
TRB 2011, Crossing solutions at roundabouts and channelized turn lanes for pedestrians with vision
disabilities, NCHRP Report 674, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, USA.
Van der Spek, SC 2010,‘Activity patterns in public space: a tool for assessing city centres: tracking
pedestrians in the historic city centre of Delft‘, Walk21 conference, The Hague, Netherlands, Walk21,
Cheltenham , UK, viewed 22 May 2012, <www.walk21.com/conferences/thehague.asp>.
VicRoads 2008,‘Pedestrian operated signals‘, in Traffic engineering manual: volume 1: chapter 4: pedestrian
facilities, VicRoads, Melbourne, Vic.
VicRoads 2010, SmartRoads guidelines, version 1.11, VicRoads, Melbourne, Vic.
VTPI 2010. Online Transportation Demand Management (TDM) encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute, Victoria, BC, Canada, viewed 22 May 2012, <www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm.>.
Wanty, DK & Wilkie, SM 2010, Trialling pedestrian countdown timers at traffic signals, research report
no.428, NZ Transport Agency, Wellington, NZ.
Winters, PL, Cleland, F, Mierzejewski, E &Tucker, L 2001, Assessing level of service equally across modes,
report 423-0, Center for Urban Transportation Research ,University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida,
USA.
Austroads 2012
— 62 —
Standards Australia
AS 1742 set-2009, Manual of uniform traffic control devices.
AS 1428.1-2009, Design for access and mobility: general requirements for access: new building work.
AS/NZS 1428.4.1:2009, Design for access and mobility - means to assist the orientation of people with vision
impairment - tactile ground surface indicators.
Austroads 2012
— 63 —
APPENDIX A MAPPING OF GTEP 13 MATERIAL INTO

AUSTROADS GUIDES
GTEP 13 sections Referenced in current Austroads Guides
1 Introduction
1.1 Pedestrians As Traffic GTM3 3.3.5, GTM4 4.7.4, GRS6 8.4
1.2 Characteristics and Behaviour GRD6 4.1
1.2.1 Body Dimensions - The Body Ellipses GRD6 4.1, 4.1.2
1.2.2 Walking Speed GTM6 4.5.3, GTM9 7.1.3
1.2.3 Walking Distance Partially in GRD6A 4.1.2 Figure 4.1
1.3 Implications for pedestrian Design GTM7 Commentary 5
1.3.1 People with Disabilities GTM7 Commentary 5, GRS6 8.4
1.3.2 Young Children GTM7 Commentary 5
1.3.3 Elderly Pedestrians GTM7 Commentary 5
1.4 Accident Profile Partially in GRS6 8.4
1.5 Pedestrian Demand Partially in GTM4 4.7.1 and GTM3 3.2.3
1.6 Pedestrian Capacity Not found
1.7 Pedestrian Consideration In Land Use Planning GTM7 2.3 Policy and planning context
1.7.1 Planning Urban Pedestrian Networks GTM7 2.3 Policy and planning context
GTM5 Table 3.1, Table 4.1, GTM7 2.3 and Commentary 1, GTM4
1.7.2 Road Hierarchy Consideration
5.3.2 and 5.3.3
2 Walkways and Footpaths
2.1 Clear Width and Height Requirements GRD6 6.2.1, 2.2.2 and Commentary 3
2.1.1 Width GRD6A 6.2.1
2.1.2 Height GRD6A 6.2.2
2.1.3 Obstruction Free Path GRD6A Commentary 6 and GTM5 Table 3.2
2.1.4 Covers and Grating GRD6A Commentary 6
2.1.5 Setback Distance GRD6A Commentary 6
2.2 Changes in Level GRD6 6.3
2.2.1 Kerbing and Kerb Ramps GTM5 Table 3.2 and GRD6A 6.4
2.2.2 Steps, Stairs and Ramps GTM5 Table 3.2 and GRD6A 6.5 and Table 6.2
2.2.3 Gradients GTM5 Table 3.2 and GRD6A 6.3
2.2.4 Crossfall GTM5 Table 3.2 and GRD6A 6.5 and Table 6.3
2.3 Surface Treatments GRD6A 6.4
2.3.1 Concrete and Asphalt GRD6A Commentary 8
2.3.2 Pavers and Bricks GRD6A Commentary 8
2.3.3 Loose Surface Materials GRD6A Commentary 8
2.4 Driveways Across Footpaths GTM11 6.5.2
2.5 Access to Buildings GTM7 3.8.2
2.6 Joint Footway/Bicycle Facilities GRD6A 4.3 and 7.5.3, GTM5 Table 3.2
Austroads 2012
— 64 —

3 Treatments For Pedestrians Crossing Roads GRD4 8.1.2 and Commentary 4
3.1 Classification of Facilities for Pedestrians Crossing Roads GTM5 Table 3.2, GTM6 Table 8.1 and GRD4 8.1.2
GTM5 Table 3.2, GTM6 Table 8.1 and Table 8.2 and generally in
3.2 Warrants and Choice of Pedestrian Crossing Facilities
GTM8 8.2
3.3 Design Considerations
3.3.1 Crossing Width GRD4 Table 8.1
3.3.2 Crossing Length GRD4 Table 8.1
3.3.3 Surfaces GRD4 Table 8.1
3.3.4 Sight Distance GTM6 3.3.3, GRD4 Table 8.1 and GRD4A 3.3
3.3.5 Stop Line Location GRD4 Table 8.1
3.3.6 Turning Vehicles GRD4A 10.6.6 and partially in GTM 6 Table 5.1, Table 5.2
3.3.7 Access to Roadway Crossings GRD4 Table 8.1 and partially GTM 6 Table 5.3
3.3.8 Orientation GRD4 Table 8.1
3.3.9 Tactile Paving GTM6 Table 3.3, GTM7 3.8.2
3.3.10 Other issues for Midblock Crossings GTM6 8.2
3.4 General Crossing Treatments GTM6 8.2
3.4.1 Pedestrian Refuges GTM6 Table 5.2 and 8 and GRD4 8.2.2 and Commentary 5
3.4.2 Footpath (Kerb) Extensions/Parking Nibs GTM6 8, GTM8 7.3.1 and GRD4 8.2.2 and Commentary 6
3.4.3 Road Narrowing/Indented Parking GTM6 8, GTM8 7.3.1 and GRD4 8.2.2
3.5 Time Separated (Controlled Traffic) Facilities GRD4 8.2.3 and Commentary 7
3.5.1 Pedestrian (Zebra) Crossing GTM6 8, GTM8 7.5.6 and GRD4 8.2.3 and Commentary 8
3.5.2 Pedestrian Operated Signals GTM6 Table 5.6 and 8 and GRD4 8.2.3
3.5.3 Pelican Crossings GTM6 8 and GRD4 8.2.3
3.5.4 Puffin Crossings GTM6 8 and GRD4 8.2.3
3.5.5 Children's Crossings Generally in GTM6 8, Table 8.1 and Table 8.2, GTM5 Table 3.1
Provision for Pedestrians at Signalised
3.5.6 Intersections GTM6 Figure 5.1, Table 5.1 and Table 5.4 and GRD4A 10.6.3
3.6 Grade (Spatial) Separation GTM6 7.3 and 8
4 Pedestrian Guidance Measures
4.1 Direction and Other Guidance Signs
4.1.1 Location of Signs Generally in GTM10 4.2, 4.5
4.1.2 Legibility Generally in GTM10 4.3
4.1.3 Typeface Generally in GTM10 4.3
4.1.4 Colour Generally in GTM10 4.3
4.1.5 Signs for People with Impaired Vision GTM6 Table 3.3, GTM10 2.2
4.1.6 Signal for People who Cannot Read GTM10 4.3
4.1.7 International Symbol GTM11 6.8.4 and 10.1.4 Pavement marking
Austroads 2012
— 65 —

4.2 Guidance Devices
4.2.1 Classification of Devices Not found
4.2.2 Audible Clues GTM9 7.1.7
4.2.3 Visual Clues GTM8 8.7, GTM6 Table 5.3
4.2.4 Tactile and Other Physical Cues GTM8 7.5.10
4.3 Pedestrian Fences, Bollards and Barriers GRD6B Table 4.1 and 4.1.6, GRD4A 10.6.3
4.3.1 Pedestrian Barrier Types and Usage GRD4A 10.6.3 and GRD6B 4.1.6
4.3.2 Design Consideration GRD4A 10.6.3
5 Pedestrian Access to Public Transport
5.1 Bus and Tram Stops and Shelters Generally in GTM5 Table 3.2, GTM6 Table 3.3 and GRD3 4.12
5.2 Public Transport Loading Islands and Safety Zones GTM5 Table 3.2 and GTM6 Table 3.3
5.3 Railway Stations GTM5 Table 3.2 and GTM6 Table 3.3
6 Pedestrian Facilities At Work Sites
6.1 Vertical Clearance Not found
6.2 Roadworks and Building Construction Partly in GRS6 8.4
7 Supplementary
7.1 Lighting
7.1.1 Objectives GTM6 6.3.3.5, GTM13 5.2.10 and GRD6B 4.2
7.1.2 General Standards and Practices GTM6 6.3.3.5, GTM13 5.2.10 and GRD6B 4.2
7.1.3 Critical Areas for Illumination GRD6B 4.2
7.1.4 Location of Lights and Poles GRD6B 4.2
7.2 Speed Limits GTM5 5
7.3 Skid Resistant Road Surfacing GRD4 Table 3.2 and Commentary 8, GRD3 7.6
7.4 Covered Walkways Generally in GTM7 3.8
8 Special Treatments
8.1 Roundabout GTM6 4.5.3, 4.6.6, Table 2.2, Table 2.4, GTM8 7.3.6, GRD4 5.2
8.2 Pedestrian Treatments at Railway Crossings GTM6 7.6.1
8.3 Street with Linked Signal Systems GTM6 5.7
8.4 Shared Zones GTM6 Table 5.4, 8, GTM8 2.2, 7.5.7
8.5 Pedestrianisation GTM7 4.5
9 Complementary Activities and Programs
9.1 Crossing Supervisors GRS4 1.9.3 not specific
9.2 Pedestrian Safety Programs Generally in GRS4 1.5
9.2.1 Group Meetings Specifics not found
9.2.2 Telephone Information Services Specifics not found
9.2.3 Signs/Maps Specifics not found
Brochures, Advertisements, TV, Radio, Video,
9.2.4 Specifics not found
Newspapers
Austroads 2012
— 66 —

10 Vehicle Parking Layout and Design to Assist Pedestrians GTM11 1.1 and 2.1
10.1 On-Street Parking GTM11 7.5 and 7.6.2 and GRD3 4.10.4
10.2 Off-Street Parking GTM11 6 and GRD6B 4.4
10.2.1 Layout and Circulation GTM11 6
10.2.2 Pedestrian Paths/Routes in Parking Areas GTM11 6
10.2.3 Sight Distance in Parking Areas GTM11 6
10.2.4 Signage, Provision of Information in Parking Areas GTM11 6.5.5
GRD3 = Geometric Design GTM3 = Traffic Studies & Analysis
GRD4 = Intersections and crossings - general GTM4 = Network Management
GRD4A = Unsignalised and Signalised intersections GTM5 = Road Management
GRD6 = Roadside Design, Safety & Barriers GTM6 = Intersections and Crossings
Note: GRD6A = Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths GTM7 = Activity Centres
GRD6B = Roadside environment GTM8 = Local Area Traffic Management
GRS4 = Local Government & Community Road Safety GTM9 = Traffic Operations
GRS6 = Road Safety Audit GTM10 = Traffic Control Devices
GTM11 = Parking
Austroads 2012
— 67 —
APPENDIX B DIRECTORY TO PEDESTRIAN ISSUES IN

GUIDE TO TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
2.5.5 Pedestrian surveys
Table 3.1 Level of service measures for pedestrians
Part 3 – Traffic Studies and Analysis 3.3.5 Pedestrians as a factor in planning, design and capacity
6.1, 6.4 Pedestrian movements in capacity analysis of intersections
Appendix E Pedestrian surveys
Table 2.1 Pedestrian trip characteristics and needs
4.4 Pedestrian considerations in public transport networks
4.7 Pedestrian networks – general and specific needs
Part 4 – Network Management
Table 4.14 Pedestrians requiring special consideration
Table 5.1 Priorities for pedestrian routes
Table 5.4 Pedestrian activity in commercial areas and activity centres
Table 3.1 Pedestrian requirements in allocation of road space
Part 5 – Road Management Table 3.2 Traffic management in allocation of pedestrian space
5.2 Pedestrian considerations in applying speed limits
2.2, Table 2.4 Pedestrian considerations in intersection type selection
Table 3.3 Pedestrian issues in intersection management
4.2–4.5 Pedestrian issues at roundabouts
Table 5.1 Pedestrian issues at signalised intersections
Table 5.2 Pedestrian requirements at signalised intersections
5.5 Pedestrian movements and signal phasing
Part 6 – Intersections, Crossings and Table 5.6 Pedestrian needs in signal timing
Interchanges 5.8 Detection of pedestrians at signals
6.4 Pedestrian issues at interchanges
Table 7.1, Table 7.2 Control for pedestrians at rail crossings
7.6 Pedestrian path crossings of railways
8 Pedestrian crossings of roads
Table 8.1 Objectives and priorities for mid-block crossing facilities
Table 8.2 Guide for selection of crossing facilities
1.3 Pedestrian activity in definition of activity centres
Table 1.3, Table 1.4 Pedestrian streets
2.2 Pedestrian needs and facilities in activity centres
Part 7 – Traffic Management in Activity 2.3 Pedestrian planning for activity centres
Centres Table 2.3 Guiding objectives for pedestrian plans
2.3.3 Pedestrian activity in transit oriented developments
3.5 Pedestrian needs in design of centres
3.6 Speed environment for pedestrians in centres
Austroads 2012
— 68 —

3.8 Providing for pedestrians – access, amenity, design, vehicle conflict
Table 3.2 Pedestrian topics in Austroads Guides
3.10 Pedestrian issues in parking at centres
Part 7 – Traffic Management in Activity 3.11 Pedestrian connections to public transport

Centres (Continued) 4.1–4.13 Examples of pedestrian traffic management in activity centres
Commentary 1 Road hierarchy and pedestrians
Commentary 3 Speed management in pedestrian areas
Commentary 5 Pedestrians with special needs
1.4–1.6 Pedestrian safety as basic issue in LATM
2.3–2.4 Pedestrian activity and road function
Table 7.1 LATM devices for pedestrian safety
7.1–7.6 Pedestrian issues in LATM devices and treatments
Part 8 – Local Area Traffic
7.2.4 Wombat crossings
Management
7.5.6 Marked pedestrian crossings
7.5.7 Shared zones
7.5.8 School zones
8.12 Catering for pedestrians in LATM schemes
7.1.3 Pedestrian movements in traffic signal phasing
Table 7.1 Pedestrian signal controller settings
7.1.7 Pedestrian detector devices – push-buttons, other
Part 9 – Traffic Operations 7.1.8 Pedestrian detection in signal coordination
Table 7.6 Pedestrian detection in transit signal priority
Appendix E Pedestrian signal timings
Appendix F Pedestrian push-buttons
2.3.2 Provision for pedestrians with disabilities
4.4.1 Fluorescent sign colours for vulnerable road users
4.5.3 Sign location and height for pedestrians
6.4.4 Pedestrian crossing markings
6.6 Coloured pavements for pedestrians
Part 10 – Traffic Control and 6.8.4 Tactile ground surface indicators

Communication Devices 8.1.3 Pedestrian signal displays
8.3.6 Pedestrian signal layout and sequence
8.4.3, 8.4.6 Pedestrian signal face location, mounting height
8.7.2 Pedestrian crosswalk lines
8.8.2 Give-way to pedestrian signs, scramble-crossing signs
9 Pedestrian issues for traffic islands and refuges
5.1 Pedestrian considerations in design of parking facilities
Part 11 – Parking 6.1 Pedestrian needs for off-street parking facilities
6.5.2 Pedestrian-vehicle interaction in off-street parking facilities
Austroads 2012
— 69 —

6.6.4 Pedestrian needs in parking structures
Part 11 – Parking (Continued) 6.9 Pedestrian issues at special event parking
7.4 Pedestrian issues with kerbside angle parking
2.1 Pedestrian considerations in planning developments
3.2, Table 3.1 Pedestrian elements in traffic management of developments
3.3 Pedestrian access to and safety within developments
Part 12 – Traffic Impacts of
4.2, 4.4 Pedestrian issues in traffic impact assessment
Developments
5.3.4 Pedestrian safety issues in assessment
Commentary 1 Pedestrian considerations in full transport assessment
Commentary 3 Pedestrian connectivity in networks
4.4.3 Separating pedestrians from conflict
Part 13 – Road Environment Safety 5.2.10 Pedestrian safety and lighting
5.2.11 Pedestrian safety at roadworks
Austroads 2012
— 70 —
APPENDIX C PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO

TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
C.1 GTM Part 3
Section 2.5.5
Insert the following material after first paragraph:
In recent years there have been significant developments in policy and strategic planning initiatives
aimed at giving greater recognition to walking activity in the transport sector. This has arisen from
policy settings in the transport and health sectors recognising the need to move towards more
sustainable forms of transport (by foot, bicycle or public transport) and towards healthier activity
(walking, cycling) by the community generally.
The development of strategies and plans has typically involved a multi-agency (health, planning,
transport) approach to creation of an ‘active living’ vision. Benefits from the implementation of
these strategies are envisaged from health, social, economic, environmental and transport
perspectives.
Much work has been done internationally, particularly in developed countries, aimed at
understanding, measuring and providing for walking generally. It is recognised that walking is not
just a transport mode – it is also a recreational activity – and there is a need to reflect this in related
measurement and survey techniques.
New Section 3.4

Insert a new Section 3.4 as follows:
3.4 Pedestrian Level of Service
Advice on the level of service provided to pedestrians by road segments and pedestrian facilities is
presented in the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2010a). It outlines the principles of pedestrian
flow, and defines the basic variables as shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Basic variables for pedestrian flow

Term Description and units
Pedestrian speed (S) Average pedestrian walking speed, measured in metres per second (m/s)
Pedestrian flow rate Number of pedestrians passing a point per unit of time, expressed as pedestrians per minute
Pedestrian unit flow rate (v) Average flow of pedestrians per unit of effective walkway width, expressed in pedestrians per minute per
metre
V=S*D=S/M
Pedestrian density (D) Average number of pedestrians per unit of area within a walkway or queuing area, expressed as
pedestrians per square metre
Pedestrian space (M) Average area provided for each pedestrian in a walkway or queuing area, expressed in terms of square
metres per pedestrian. This includes the basic plan ellipse plus consideration of forward space
Source: TRB (2010a).
The relationships between pedestrian densities, flow rates and walking speeds are presented, and
indicative practical values for these and start-up times at signals are given. The effects of
bunching and platooning of pedestrians is also outlined. Pedestrian platoons are defined in a
manner similar to that for vehicle flow.
Austroads 2012
— 71 —
3.4.1 Basic Concepts

The basic concept of levels of service (Section 3.2.2) may be applied to pedestrian facilities. For
pedestrian walkways, LoS criteria are described primarily in terms of space, flow rates, and
speeds. Input data requirements also include geometric features such as footpath length and
width. Other measures relating to pedestrian flow include interaction with crossing or opposing
main stream flows.
It is possible therefore to conceive of general pedestrian levels of service in a manner parallel to

that for the traditional vehicle flow basis for level of service, as set out in Table 3.3. Criteria for
each of the levels can be set in terms of pedestrian density and flow rates.
Table 3.3: Pedestrian walkway levels of service

Description for footpaths and walkways
Level of Service
Criteria: density, flow rates
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.
B There is sufficient area for pedestrians to select walking speeds freely, to bypass
other pedestrians, and to avoid crossing conflicts. Pedestrians begin to be aware
of other pedestrians, and to respond to their presence when selecting a walking
path.
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.
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. Friction and interaction
between pedestrians is likely.
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.
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.
For pedestrian activity in crossing roadways, other factors contribute to level of service criteria.
Delay is a prime consideration (for signalised and unsignalised crossing points) and available
space for queuing (waiting) at signalised intersections can be a major consideration. At
unsignalised crossing points other factors such as directness of desired route and proximity to
other controlled crossing points are also relevant.
3.4.2 Using LoS in the Assessment of Crossing Facilities

The level of service (LoS) approach can be used to assist in the assessment of pedestrian
crossing facilities, as demonstrated in the NZ guide (NZTA 2007) and the Queensland manual
(QTMR 2011).
Austroads 2012
— 72 —
The NZ guide includes a description of the procedures developed for selecting appropriate
crossing facilities, based firmly on the LoS concept. A spreadsheet tool (Tate & Waibl 2007) is
used to calculate and compare levels of service for various proposed crossing facilities or
improvements.
An example figure emanating from the spreadsheet analysis, based on inputs for flow type, lane
numbers and widths, pedestrian characteristics and walk speeds, is reproduced as Figure 3.2.
Source: NZTA (2007).
Figure 3.2: Mean delay for various crossing facilities on a two-lane, two-way urban road (uninterrupted flow)
Relative crash reduction factors associated with the various facilities may be used also to assist in
selection of the most appropriate facility.
A similar procedure for the assessment and selection of pedestrian crossing facilities and
prioritisation of sites for treatment has been developed in Queensland, and incorporated into a
technical manual (QTMR 2011).
The procedure uses spreadsheet analysis to define levels of service in terms of the primary factor
of delay to pedestrians attempting to cross the road, and to capture information on features of the
location and facility under consideration. Points are generated for the defined LoS, and additional
points are generated to modify the scores to account for other factors such as pedestrian volumes,
pedestrian characteristics, crash history, restricted visibility, proximity of other crossings, network
and connectivity factors, and local traffic impacts.
Austroads 2012
— 73 —
Guidelines are provided relating the point scores to various crossing facilities, and giving guidance
on the application of the facilities, their advantages and disadvantages. Judgments may then be
made on the selection of an appropriate facility or treatment of the location.
These approaches differ from the traditional method of numerical warrants based primarily on
traffic and pedestrian flows and are preferred. They allow judgments to be made from a broader
perspective, considering safety and delay issues.
Further work on development of measures to assess walkability of the pedestrian environment

(see Section 3.4.3) will eventually lead to a refinement of the procedure and the LoS criteria.
3.4.3 Walkability and Perceived Levels of Service

The NZ guide (NZTA 2007) contains useful guidance on measuring ‘walkability’, an indicator of the
extent to which the built environment is regarded as suitable or acceptable, in terms of physical
and perceived attributes, for walking.
Combining desktop analyses (of pedestrian desire lines and route connectivity) and on-site
assessments (involving technical audits and pedestrian ratings) of routes and facilities has led to
the development of community street reviews (NZTA 2010). These reviews combine a street audit
approach, which identifies deficiencies and opportunities for improvements, with a user perceptions
rating system. The procedure rates the environment with respect to overall walkability, as well as
more detailed characteristics such as safety, security, obstacles, delay, impedance by others,
directness of route, and ambience.
Detailed development of the measurement of walkability (Abley & Turner 2011) is leading to
predictions of the quality of the walking environment from the perspective of pedestrians, using
operational and physical variables. These combine community street review results with
measurements of the walking environment, for both walking along a street and crossing a street.
The HCM 2010 edition incorporates the results of considerable research activity undertaken in the
decade since the publication of the previous 2000 edition. An overview of the development of
material for HCM 2010, with a particular focus on LoS, is given by Roess, Vandehey, and Kittelson
(2010). The research work was aimed at the need to consider the role of user perceptions in
determining LoS for various facilities. This recognised that user perceptions are heavily influenced
by non-operational factors, such as environmental and aesthetic considerations – especially for
pedestrians.
Additional factors contributing to the perceived level of service for pedestrian facilities are
acknowledged as:
 comfort (weather protection, climate control, shelter)
 convenience (walking distance, path directions, grades, signing information)
 economy (costs from delays and queuing)
 safety (physical and temporal separation from vehicular traffic)
 security (lighting, open sight lines).
The computational procedures in HCM 2010 for analysing the capacity and level of service for
pedestrian facilities incorporate factors reflecting pedestrian perceptions of quality of the facilities.
These are derived from the background research work.
Austroads 2012
— 74 —
3.4.4 Multimodal Level of Service

HCM 2010 considers assessment of the LoS of road or highway facilities from a multimodal level of
service approach, derived from a major research project NCHRP 3-70 (TRB 2008). The
multimodal approach recognises that different mode users could perceive the quality of service
differently due to their different perspectives and experiences. This approach considers the
different road user perspectives for vehicles (cars), public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.
A facility can be assessed by determining the LoS score for each of the modes, and comparing the
numerical scores against the LoS criteria. An overall LoS is not calculated. Judgments on the
selection or development of the facility must be made on the basis of the different modal scores,
and additional relevant information (e.g. safety performance), depending on the function intended
for the roadway concerned. This necessarily involves consideration of how one mode affects the
service quality of other modes, and trade-offs between modes.
The method includes a complete street analysis approach for interrupted flow facilities (segments
and crossings, including at roundabouts). Emphasis is placed on ‘quality of service’ to consider
how well a facility or service operates from a user’s perspective.
The HCM 2010 presents pedestrian LoS criteria in the context of the multimodal LoS approach,
with underlying calculations incorporating factors reflecting pedestrian perceptions, preferences
and behaviour as indicated by research studies. Less emphasis is placed on pedestrian density
and space factors than was previously the case. Details of the computational methods are given in
the NCHRP Report 616 (TRB 2008) and in the electronic Volume 4 Applications Guide of the
HCM 2010.
Appendix E
Add the following material after the first paragraph in Section E.1.1:
Pedestrian activity is not always simple travel from one point to another. It may also include the
activity known as sojourning, involving the social aspects of walking such as wandering, standing,
conversing, looking and resting. Traditional methods of measuring pedestrian flow activity are not
always appropriate. Depending on the objectives for measuring pedestrian activity (for example, to
assess the capacity and attractiveness of an urban space, as compared with the capacity of a
planned walkway) it might be more appropriate to measure time spent in the space and monitor
routes taken within the space, in addition to counting persons crossing cordon lines at several
entries/exits.
Add material to the sub-section on Video Detection; add the following after the dot points:
A prime advantage of video records of pedestrian activity is that the records can be analysed many
times from different perspectives and for different purposes. This implies that careful consideration
must be given to the positioning of cameras to ensure that relevant activities and locations are
covered. This emphasises the basic need to have clear objectives for monitoring the pedestrian
activity.
Add the following material in a new sub-section following the Video Detection sub-section:
GPS Tracking
The increasing availability, and decreasing cost, of tracking devices offers advantages in
monitoring pedestrian activity. Using GPS technology to observe walking patterns in city centres,
for example, offers new abilities for collecting data across a broad spectrum. It is possible to
gather individual and collective data on whole trips (including interaction with public transport
Austroads 2012
— 75 —
facilities), routes through the network and within defined areas, access points, active and inactive
time, visited locations, and intensities of use of space, as well as average speeds and flow
information. Collecting data using GPS tracking can provide greater insight into pedestrian
behaviour and pedestrian movement, which can be used to help define interventions to improve
the walkability of public spaces.
Bluetooth wireless technology can also be used to track vehicles which are increasingly fitted with
Bluetooth devices. Many pedestrians are also now Bluetooth enabled, carrying personal devices
such as mobile phones and headsets.
C.2 GTM Part 4

Section 4.7.1
Add the following material after the first paragraph:
aimed at giving greater recognition to walking activity in transport planning. This has arisen from
This has led to recognition of the need for planning and designing communities for people
movements, not just car movements, with an emphasis on active travel such as walking and
cycling. There is a need to plan transport networks which acknowledge the potential increase in
active travel. A greater emphasis will also be needed in road network planning and urban design
on providing facilities for pedestrian activity.
Add the following material after the last paragraph:

Safety is a prime objective in traffic management, and pedestrians are particularly vulnerable. In a
vehicle-pedestrian collision, the probability of survival for the pedestrian decreases dramatically at
impact speeds above about 30 km/h. The Safe System approach to road safety management
recognises that humans make errors, that crashes will continue to occur and that humans have a
limited tolerance to impact forces. It aims to ensure that the road/traffic environment does not
present opportunities for that tolerance to be exceeded. In the pedestrian context this means
ensuring that facilities provided for pedestrians do not expose them to the likelihood of serious
injury or death; that vehicles and pedestrians are separated physically or temporally, or that the
speed environment is controlled to keep potential impact speeds within survivable limits.
C.3 GTM Part 5

Section 1.2
Add the following material after the second paragraph (ending with ‘…amenity of those areas.’):
Recent developments in policy and strategic planning initiatives are aimed at giving greater
recognition to walking activity in road and transport planning. This has arisen from policy settings
in the transport and health sectors recognising the need to move towards more sustainable forms
of transport (by foot, bicycle or public transport) and towards healthier activity (walking, cycling) by
the community generally.
This has led to recognition of the need for planning and providing a road network which caters for
the potential increase in active travel such as walking and cycling. This is a fundamental factor for
Austroads 2012
— 76 —
consideration in striving for balance between the mobility and access functions of roads in the
network.
This is particularly relevant to local roads and streets in the urban network where pedestrian
activity, and the potential for conflicts, is greatest.
Table 3.1
Add material to the cell of the table dealing with Pedestrian Space/Urban local roads; replace the
last item (‘– urban design ..’) with the following material:
 Urban design, by converting minor roads into pedestrian malls (an example of separating
vehicles and pedestrians) or provision of shared zones (integrating pedestrian and vehicular
traffic, with priority for pedestrians) or creation of shared spaces (integration by removing
demarcation of vehicular and pedestrian areas of the street).
Table 3.2
Add material to the cell of the table dealing with Pedestrians/Crossing facilities; replace the last two
dot points with the following material:
 The types of mid-block crossing that may be provided include:
— Pedestrian operated signals
— Pelican crossing (where traffic signals have a flashing yellow phase for vehicles)
— Puffin crossing (where pedestrian presence on the crossing is detected and signal
timing for the crossing is adjusted accordingly)
— Pedestrian operated school signals
— Pedestrian (Zebra) crossing
— Pedestrian (Wombat) crossing
— Children’s crossing
— Pedestrian refuge.
Selection of pedestrian crossing facilities on the basis of safety and pedestrian level of service is
outlined in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 3. This approach is preferred to selection based
only on numerical warrants, as provided in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 6.
C.4 GTM Part 6

Section 1
Add material in new Section 1.3 as follows:
1.3 Safety Objectives
Safety is a prime objective in traffic management, and is pursued in accordance with the Safe
System approach which underpins the national road safety strategies in Australia and New
Zealand. The Safe System approach to road safety management recognises that humans make
errors, that crashes will continue to occur and that humans have a limited tolerance to impact
forces.
Austroads 2012
— 77 —
The approach aims to provide a safer road and traffic environment in which alert and responsible
road users should not be killed or seriously injured as a result of a crash. It is structured around
the basic pillars of safer roads, safer speeds, safer vehicles, and safer road users.
In the context of providing and managing intersection facilities, the Safe System approach aims to
ensure that potential collisions are avoided and, if they occur, that the potential crash impact forces
do not exceed human tolerance. Speed in intersections is a critical factor. For a vehicle-vehicle
right-angle collision, the probability of survival for the occupant of the vehicle struck in the side
decreases dramatically for impact speeds above about 50 km/h. Pedestrians are particularly
vulnerable. For vehicle-pedestrian collisions, the equivalent survival speed is about 30 km/h.
The provision of intersection facilities and related features on the approach roads must therefore
strive to ensure that these potential impact speeds are not exceeded. From the pedestrian safety
perspective, this is particularly relevant to local roads and streets in the urban network where
pedestrian activity, and the potential for conflicts, is greatest.
Section 4.5.3
Add the following material immediately prior to the paragraph commencing ‘The ability of vehicles
to enter …’
A recent US publication (TRB 2010) provides information and guidance on roundabouts, for
designs suitable for a variety of typical conditions in the United States. It provides general
information, planning techniques, evaluation procedures for assessing operational and safety
performance, design guidelines, and principles to be considered for selecting and designing
roundabouts.
A separate publication (TRB 2011) provides practitioners with specific guidance on establishing
safe crossings at roundabouts for pedestrians with vision disabilities. It identifies the conditions
under which pedestrians with vision disabilities may experience problems with crossing
performance, and suggests specific treatment solutions. It also includes advice on conducting
pedestrian/vehicle studies related to these problems, and on quantifying pedestrian accessibility at
crossings.
(References as follows):
TRB 2010 Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. NCHRP Report 672. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC.
TRB 2011 Crossing Solutions at Roundabouts and Channelized Turn Lanes for Pedestrians with Vision
Disabilities. NCHRP Report 674. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Section 8.1.2
Add the following material after the dot points:
The Australian Standard AS 1428.1 Design for Access and Mobility – General Requirements for
Access specifies requirements, with particular attention to paths of travel, access and facilities for
people with ambulatory and sensory disabilities and those who use wheelchairs. From the design
perspective, additional guidance is given in the Austroads Guide to Road Design Part 6A, and in
the NZ Pedestrian Planning and Design Guide (NZTA 2007).
Austroads 2012
— 78 —
Table 8.1
Add material to the row of the table dealing with Integrated Facilities; replace description of Shared
Zone with revised material below, and add material on Shared Space, as follows:
Shared zone Environment is adapted for low speed.
Image of street changed to increase awareness of different conditions.
Improves safety and amenity for pedestrians and cyclists without affecting
access. Pedestrians have legal priority.
Provides for flexible parking arrangements.
Usually restrictions on vehicle type.
High cost, motorists may not observe speed restrictions during periods of
low pedestrian and cyclist use.
Refer to Part 4 of the Guide to Road Design; AS1742.9, AS1742.10 &
AS1742.13.
Shared space Removal, or at least reduction, in traffic control devices.
Reduction or removal of separation between vehicles and pedestrians.
Vehicle-pedestrian interaction increases as level of demarcation is
reduced.
Improves pedestrian movement and comfort by reducing dominance of
motor vehicles.
Normal priorities apply, but design encourages sharing.
DfT (2011) provides guidance on how physical features can influence the
level of sharing.
Section 8.2.1
Add material after first paragraph as follows:
The selection of appropriate pedestrian crossing facilities should be made on the basis of safety
performance and the level of service provided to pedestrians. Guidance on this approach is
outlined in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 3. This approach is preferred to a selection
method based only on numerical warrants arising from vehicle and pedestrian flows.
New sub-section in 8.2
Remove the Note on Pelican and Puffin crossings from Table 8.1 and place it in a new section
immediately before the existing section 8.2.3, to read as follows:
8.2.3 Crossings at Signalised Facilities
Pelican and Puffin (Pedestrian User Friendly Intelligent) crossings are pedestrian operated signals
with operational modifications. Pelican crossings have a flashing yellow phase that enables
vehicles to proceed once pedestrians have cleared the crossing. Puffin crossings have additional
detectors to monitor the progress of pedestrians on the crossing allowing the crossing time to be
reduced when a pedestrian has crossed quickly, or extended for slow moving pedestrians. Refer
to the Guide to Road Design Part 4 and Section 5 of the Guide to Traffic Management Part 6;
Refer also to AS1742.9, AS1742.10 & AS1742.14; NZTA (2007).
A trial of a Puffin pedestrian crossing installation with nearside displays for pedestrians was
undertaken in NZ. It was concluded (Murray & Walton 2009) that Puffin crossings offered
advantages over normal signalised midblock crossings and that the nearside displays gave rise to
better user compliance than did the usual far-side displays.
Austroads 2012
— 79 —
Pedestrian countdown timers (PCTs), providing users with information on the available crossing
time remaining, may also be considered. These are used widely in some European countries and
are now mandated for use in the USA for all new traffic signal installations. A review of
international experience (Levasseur & McTiernan 2010) indicated there was merit in trialling their
application.
A trial in Melbourne (Cairney et al. 2010) concluded that there was no reliable indication of an
improvement in pedestrian behaviour or a reduction in risk to pedestrians following installation of
the PCTs. An investigation of trial PCT installations in Sydney (Levasseur & Brisbane 2011)
concluded that there was no net improvement with regard to safety or compliance, but an
increased amenity for pedestrians arising from reduced delay at crossings was suggested. In NZ,
a trial of PCTs (Wanty & Wilkie 2010) produced inconclusive results, but pointed to a reduction in
compliance which suggested a potential reduction in safety. No definitive guidance for PCT
installations in Australia has yet emerged.
Section 8.3
Add the following material to the end of the second paragraph (currently ending ‘… design
measures’) as follows:
Key conflict issues between pedestrians and cyclists on shared paths and footpaths are identified
and described in Austroads (2006), and guidance on key conflict minimisation strategies and
options are presented. Summary information on these conflicts is provided in the Guide to Road
Design Part 6A.
C.5 GTM Part 7

Commentary C3.6
Add material on shared spaces to Commentary C3.6, as follows:
Recent developments in application of shared spaces in the UK are documented in a
comprehensive guide (DfT 2011) which presents the principles of the facilities, the needs and
behaviour of the road users (pedestrians, cyclists, vehicle drivers), the development of shared
space schemes, and detailed advice on design.
C.6 GTM Part 8

Section 7.5.7
Add material after the end of the second paragraph dealing with shared zones, as follows:
A variant on the shared zone concept, known as a ‘shared space’, has been developed in recent
years. Shared spaces are typified by removal, or at least reduction, in traffic control devices, and
the reduction or removal of clear demarcation of separate vehicle and non-motorised areas. The
concept has been applied across a broad range of street types, and details of design features have
been similarly varied. Normal priorities between vehicles and pedestrians apply, but the design
and appearance of the environment encourages sharing. A comprehensive guide based on UK
experience is available (DfT 2011) and further comment on this emerging facility is given in the
Guide to Traffic Management Part 7 (Commentary 3.6).
Austroads 2012
— 80 —
APPENDIX D PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO

ROAD DESIGN
D.1 GRD Part 2
Section 1.4.1
Add material after the first paragraph, as follows:
Safety is a prime objective in road design, and is pursued in accordance with the Safe System
approach which underpins the national road safety strategies in Australia and New Zealand. The
Safe System approach recognises that humans make errors, that crashes will continue to occur
and that humans have a limited tolerance to impact forces. The approach aims to provide a safer
road and traffic environment in which alert and responsible road users should not be killed or
seriously injured as a result of a crash. It is structured around the basic pillars of safer roads, safer
speeds, safer vehicles, and safer road users.
In the context of designing and providing a safer road environment, the Safe System approach
aims to ensure that potential collisions are avoided and, if they occur, that the potential crash
impact forces do not exceed human tolerance. On rural roads and major arterials multi-vehicle and
single-vehicle crashes are the prime concern, whereas on urban local roads pedestrian activity,
and the potential for vehicle-pedestrian conflicts, is greatest. Pedestrians are particularly
vulnerable to serious injury. Design considerations for local roads must therefore strive to ensure
that these conflicts are avoided and that design speeds are commensurate with potential impact
speeds that are survivable. (See also Section 1.9)
Section 1.9
Add material at the beginning of the section, as follows:
aimed at giving greater recognition to walking activity in transport planning, particularly in urban
areas. This has arisen from policy settings in the transport and health sectors recognising the
need to move towards more sustainable forms of transport (by foot, bicycle or public transport) and
towards healthier activity (walking, cycling) by the community generally. This has led to recognition
of the need for planning and designing a road network which caters for the potential increase in
active travel, and for providing facilities for safe pedestrian activity.
Add material at the end of the section, after the dot points, as follows:
It is not always possible, or desirable, to clearly separate vehicular and pedestrian activity. In
some instances the provision of shared areas is a preferred approach, utilising facilities such as
‘shared zones’ and ‘shared spaces’. Further discussion of these facilities is given in the Guide to
Traffic Management, Parts 5, 6 and 7.
Section 2.4.1
Add material after the first paragraph, as follows:
The recent developments in policy and planning initiatives giving greater recognition to more
sustainable forms of transport (see Section 1.9) in urban areas have led to consideration of a road
user hierarchy in addition to the traditional road hierarchy. The road user hierarchy indicates the
relative priorities to be accorded to road user categories in the operations of the road network. In
accordance with this, pedestrian activity is often identified for priority consideration on some
Austroads 2012
— 81 —
sections. This needs to be integrated and balanced with priorities arising from the prevailing
functional road classifications.
Commentary T
Replace the last paragraph with the following material:
Conditions affecting level of service include the roadway, terrain, driver population, traffic mix and
characteristics, and traffic controls. The concepts of 'Level of Service' are well described in the US
Highway Capacity Manual (TRB 2010) and the Austroads Guide to Traffic Management Part 3, in
addition to Part 3 of this Guide to Road Design.
For pedestrian facilities, the basic concept of level of service applies but the details are often more
complex than a simple translation of the above ‘traffic flow’ approach would provide. For crossing
facilities, pedestrian delay is a prime consideration. Many other factors including perceptions of
quality and comfort contribute to practical (perceived) levels of service. Further advice on
pedestrian level of service is given in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 3.
D.2 GRD Part 4

Section 8.2.4
Amend the third paragraph to read as follows:
The general form of kerb ramps is illustrated in Figure 8.6. AS 1428.1:2009 provides guidance
regarding the design of kerb ramps. A minimum footway width of 1500 mm should be provided
beyond the top of the ramp, to ensure that users of the footway along the street are not
inconvenienced by the ramp. A kerb ramp gradient of 1:10 is sometimes proposed in order to
address the possibility of wheelchairs tipping backwards when traversing the transition to
ascending the ramp. This gradient is less than the maximum of 1:8 quoted in AS 1428.1, which
should be considered as an absolute maximum ramp gradient.
The gradient of 1:8 is prescribed so that a person with a vision impairment can identify the change
in grade without the aid of TGSI. With a lesser slope it is more likely that a person with a vision
impairment will not detect the change in grade (possibly stumbling or tripping). This could result in
more widespread use of TGSI which is also an undesirable outcome for many people who use
wheelchairs. Limited field testing with wheelchair models available in the Australian market
demonstrated that on the 1:8 slope none of the wheelchairs become stranded in the transition of
grade or tipped backwards
D.3 GRD Part 6A

Section 1.3
Add the following material to the end of the section:
Pedestrians (and cyclists) are particularly vulnerable to serious injury. In a vehicle-pedestrian
collision, the probability of survival for the pedestrian decreases dramatically at impact speeds
above about 30 km/h. The speed environment where pedestrian paths, and pedestrian desire
lines generally, need to cross traffic streams is therefore a critical consideration.
Austroads 2012
— 82 —
Section 6.2.1
Replace last sentence of the fourth paragraph (commencing ‘In some instances …’) with material
as follows:
The planning process may involve estimation of pedestrian demands and the application of
capacity analysis to ensure that the path will provide an appropriate level of service (Fruin 1987;
NZTA 2007). It is to be noted that factors other than pedestrian space requirements, flow rates
and path dimensions often need to be taken into account. Factors such as grade, route directness,
adjacent land-use, landscaping, surface, and feelings of security and comfort may contribute to the
overall perceived ‘level of service’ that a path might offer. Further guidance on pedestrian level of
service is given in the Guide to Traffic Management Part 3.
Austroads 2012
— 83 —
APPENDIX E PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO

ROAD SAFETY
E.1 GRS Part 1
Section 2.3
Add the following material after the third last paragraph (ending ‘ … users are at risk’):
It is important therefore in measuring overall road safety performance and monitoring trends to
consider the data for the component road user types. Decreasing overall trends in frequencies or
rates may mask less favourable trends for some particular road user types. These need to be
identified and understood.
In the case of pedestrians, for example, shifts in policy and planning strategies encouraging an
increase in active travel modes such as walking may lead to an increased exposure to risk for
pedestrians (in the absence of countervailing initiatives). This might well be reflected in an
increase in injuries and deaths, and such a deteriorating situation might be offset and masked by
safety gains for vehicle occupants. This in turn underlines the need for additional data on travel
activity for specific road user types to measure exposure.
E.2 GRS Part 2

Section 3.4
Add the following material after the first paragraph:
Recent developments in policy and planning initiatives give greater emphasis to the need to move
towards more sustainable forms of transport (by foot, bicycle or public transport) and towards
healthier activity (walking, cycling) by the community generally. This is increasingly actively
encouraged, and has the potential to contribute to an increased risk to safety. While preventative
countermeasures can be developed, there is a basic need for relevant data on walking (distance,
duration, location type, time of day, etc.) – as a transport mode and a recreational activity – in
order to monitor the situation effectively.
Section 3.7
Add the following material at the end of the section:
In addition, increasing community awareness of the need for more healthy activity, as reflected in
shifts in transport planning policies (see Section 3.4), has the potential to increase the proportion of
active travel such as walking and cycling. This needs to be considered in developing safety
strategies and programs.
Appendix A
Add material to the sub-section on Safe System Approach; add a new paragraph after the
paragraph commencing ‘The system is shown …’ with the following material:
Pedestrians (and cyclists) are particularly vulnerable to serious injury. In a vehicle-pedestrian
collision, the probability of survival for the pedestrian decreases dramatically at impact speeds
above about 30 km/h. Management of the speed environment where pedestrians and vehicles
interact is therefore a critical consideration.
Austroads 2012
— 84 —
E.3 GRS Part 4

Section 1.3
Add the following material after the dot points and immediately before the final paragraph:
Local government has responsibility for the provision and maintenance of local roads and
management of the traffic they carry. In urban areas the local roads primarily provide access to
residential properties, and the responsibilities include related features such as footpaths and
crossing facilities, and some provision of local transport services. There are thus implications for
the management of pedestrian activity associated with these facilities. Local government
responsibilities therefore clearly include a central role in pedestrian safety management.
Austroads 2012
— 85 —
APPENDIX F PROPOSED MATERIAL FOR GUIDE TO

ROAD TRANSPORT PLANNING
F.1 GRPT Section 1
Section 1.3
Add the following material after the last paragraph:
aimed at giving greater recognition to walking activity in transport planning. This has arisen from
This has led to recognition of the need for planning and designing communities for people
movements, not just car movements, with an emphasis on active travel such as walking and
cycling. There is a need to plan transport networks which acknowledge the potential increase in
active travel, and develop infrastructure facilities which increase its appeal.
Austroads 2012
— 86 —
INFORMATION RETRIEVAL
Austroads, 2013, Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities, Sydney, A4,

pp.90. AP-R423-13
Keywords:
pedestrians, pedestrian facilities, walkways, footpaths, shared paths,

pedestrian crossing, level of service, walkability.
Abstract:
This review of research, newly published material and emerging practice has
identified areas where additional advice and guidance on pedestrian facilities
can be incorporated into the Austroads Guides. Greater recognition of the
importance of walking from health and transport perspectives, and a greater
emphasis on providing pedestrian facilities in road network planning and
management, are required. The development of techniques for assessing the
quality of the walking environment, and for determining the level of service
provided for pedestrians, is also to be addressed. Recommendations are
made for amendments to the text of relevant Austroads Guides, in particular
the Guide to Traffic Management, and for the development of a comprehensive
pedestrian facilities assessment tool.

Austroads Research Report: Guide Information For Pedestrian Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austroads Research Report: Guide Information For Pedestrian Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Austroads Research Report: Guide Information For Pedestrian Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AP-R423-13

AUSTROADS RESEARCH REPORT

Guide Information for Pedestrian

Published February 2013

© Austroads Ltd 2013

Guide Information for Pedestrian Facilities

Austroads Project No. NT1523

Austroads Publication No. AP–R423-13

Published by Austroads Ltd

4.4 Pedestrian Perceptions of Facilities .................................................................................... 34

1.2 Project Approach

1.3.1 Walking and Health

1.3.2 Pedestrian Safety

Source: OECD & ECMT (2006).

Figure 1.1: Probability of death to pedestrian in a collision with a motor vehicle

2 GUIDANCE ON PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Table 2.1: GTEP 13 material not directly identified in Austroads Guides

GTEP 13 Possible guide

Table 2.2: General pedestrian topics in Austroads Guides

2.1.2 Guide to Traffic Management

Guide to Traffic Management Part 3 – Traffic Studies and Analysis

Guide to Traffic Management Part 4 – Network Management

Guide to Traffic Management Part 5 – Road Management

Guide to Traffic Management Part 6 – Intersections and Crossings

Guide to Traffic Management Part 7 – Traffic Management in Activity Centres

Guide to Traffic Management Part 8 – Local Area Traffic Management

Guide to Traffic Management Part 9 – Traffic Operations

Guide to Traffic Management Part 10 – Traffic Control Devices

Guide to Traffic Management Part 11 – Parking

Guide to Traffic Management Part 12 – Traffic Impact of Developments

Guide to Traffic Management Part 13 – Road Environment Safety

2.1.3 Guide to Road Design

Guide to Road Design Part 2 – Design Considerations

Guide to Road Design Part 3 – Geometric Design

Guide to Road Design Part 4 – Intersections and Crossings – General

Guide to Road Design Part 4B – Roundabouts

Guide to Road Design Part 6 – Roadside Design

Guide to Road Design Part 6A – Pedestrian and Cyclist Paths

Table 2.3: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Design

2.1.4 Guide to Road Safety

Table 2.4: Coverage of pedestrian issues in the Guide to Road Safety

2.1.5 Guide to Road Transport Planning

2.1.6 Australian Standards

Table 2.5: Pedestrian matters covered in Australian Standards

2.1.7 New Zealand Guidance

The purpose of this Guide is to:

Table 2.6: Comparison of content – NZ Guide vs Austroads Guides

Measures to guide pedestrians Pedestrian signs (route, Part 6 Part 4

Appendix 3 General issues to be addressed

Appendix 4 Comprehensive list (178 items) of

Appendix 5 Alphabetical index with Section

Details of approaches to engaging the community in the development and implementation of

The vulnerability of pedestrians to serious injury in traffic is highlighted by reference to the

Further discussion is presented in Section 3.5.1.

2.1.8 Developments in Australia

Table 2.7: Developments in Australia regarding walking strategy

Pedestrian Access and Mobility Plans (PAMP) www.rta.nsw.gov.au/doingbusinesswithus/lgr/downloads/pr

Smart Roads Connecting Communities www.vicroads.vic.gov.au/Home/TrafficAndRoadConditions

Inner Melbourne Action Plan – Greenlight Project www.imap.vic.gov.au