A
Report Entitled
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities
Submitted under the subject
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
Prepared By
Harsh Parmar
ME Sem-02
Subject Mentor
DR. PANKAJ S. PRAJAPATI
Associate Professor
CIVIL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FACULTY TECHNOLOGY AND ENGINEERING
THE MAHARAJA SAYAJIRAO UNIVERSITY OF
BARODA
Year: 2024-25
TABLE OF CONTENT
Contents
[Link].......................................................................2
2. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES..........................................................3
2.1 Terminology.......................................................................3
2.2 Human Space Requirements...............................................3
2.2.1 Pedestrian Speed-Density-Flow Relationship.................4
2.2.2 Effective Walkway Width...............................................5
2.2.3 Walking Speeds............................................................7
2.2.4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Walkways...........................7
2.3 Environmental Factors.......................................................8
2.4 Planning for Pedestrians..................................................10
3. BICYCLE FACILITIES..............................................................17
3.1 Definitions.......................................................................17
3.2 Capacity Implications.......................................................17
3.2.1 On-Street Bicycle Lanes..............................................18
3.3 Bikeway Location.............................................................19
3.4 Bikeway Design................................................................19
4. REFRENCES..........................................................................21
1|Page
[Link]
Pedestrian and bicycle facilities are essential components of modern
transportation systems, designed to enhance mobility, safety, and
accessibility for non-motorized users. As cities grow and traffic congestion
increases, promoting walking and cycling has become a key strategy for
sustainable urban development. These facilities not only improve road
safety for vulnerable users but also contribute to environmental
conservation, public health, and efficient land use. Properly planned
pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure includes sidewalks, crosswalks,
pedestrian signals, bike lanes, and shared-use paths. These elements
ensure seamless connectivity between residential, commercial, and
recreational areas, reducing dependence on motor vehicles. By integrating
such facilities into urban planning and traffic engineering, cities can create
inclusive and efficient transportation networks that benefit all road users.
2|Page
2. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
It is only within the last decade that pedestrian facility planning and
programming has attained some importance. Local agencies are
attempting to include pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks and
footbridges, in new construction with major funding commitments.
"Retrofit" programs are also being undertaken to provide facilities for
pedestrian movement.
In this section, we describe the basic pedestrian characteristics and their
application to planning and designing of pedestrian facilities. The level-of-
service concept, used so successfully in highway design, is also applied to
pedestrian design. Two excel-lent references on pedestrian planning and
design are by Fruin (1971) and Pushkarev and Zupan (1975).
2.1 Terminology
Pedestrian design analysis makes use of terms commonly used in traffic
engineering. These include the following:
Pedestrian speed: average walking speed, expressed in feet per
second.
Pedestrian flow rate: number of pedestrians passing a point per unit
time, expressed as pedestrians/minute or pedestrians per 15 minutes.
"Point" refers to a perpendicular line of sight across the width of a
walkway.
Unit width flow: pedestrians per minute per foot.
Platoon: a number of pedestrians walking together in a group, usually
involuntarily.
Pedestrian density: average number of pedestrians per unit area within
a walk-way or queuing area, expressed in pedestrians per square foot.
Pedestrian space: average area provided for each pedestrian, which is
the in-verse of density, expressed in square feet per pedestrian.
2.2 Human Space Requirements
Individual persons, on an average, require a minimum area when
standing, which is known as the body ellipse. It measures 18 in. by 24 in.,
as shown in Figure 1. This minimum space requirement of 2.3 ft²/person is
not sufficient if human beings are carrying luggage or backpacks. For
personal comfort, Fruin suggests about 7 to 10 ft²/person. Note that these
space requirements are for persons standing without motion (Fruin, 1971;
FHWA, 1980).
3|Page
Figure 1 Body Ellipse
Figure 2 Theoretical Model of Pedestrian Flow in Single Channels: (a) Speed versus Density; (b) Speed versus Volume; (c)
Volume versus Density
4|Page
2.2.1 Pedestrian Speed-Density-Flow Relationship
Pedestrian flow is de-scribed in terms of speed and flow, which can be
approximated by a parabolic curve that is similar to motor vehicle flow
(Greenshields, 1934; TRB, 2000). A theoretical speed-density-flow
relationship is shown in Figure. As density increases, the speed of
pedestrians in the traffic stream decreases. However, density (D) is an
inconvenient concept, particularly when one deals with fractions of
pedestrians; therefore, the reciprocal of density or available space per
pedestrian is often used (Greenshields, 1934; Khisty, 1985; TRB, 2000).
v=SXD
Where,
v = pedestrian flow in ped/min/ft
S = pedestrian speed in ft/min
D = pedestrian density in ped/ft²
v = S/M
Where,
M = pedestrian module in ft²/ped.
Also, pedestrian demand is expressed as ped/15 min, using a peak 15-
minute period of flow as the basis for analysis. The average pedestrian
flow (v) is then computed as ,
v = V/15WE
Where,
V = peak pedestrian flow (ped/15 min)
WE = effective walkway width (ft)
Relationships between pedestrian speed and density, speed and flow, and
flow and space are shown in Figures respectively. Also, the relationship
between walking speed and available space is shown in Figure. It shows
that at an average space of about 15 ft²/ped, even the slowest pedestrian
cannot achieve his or her desired walking speed. Pedestrians wanting to
walk at say 250 ft/min are not able to achieve such speed freely until the
average space is about 40 ft²/ped. This fact gives us a clue regarding
level-of-service boundaries, described later.
5|Page
Figure 3 Relationships between Pedestrian Speed and Density
2.2.2 Effective Walkway Width
The concept of a defined pedestrian "lane" as applied in motor vehicle
traffic is not applicable in pedestrian flow analysis. Pedestrians passing
each other generally require 2.5 ft width each. Pedestrians walking
together may require a width of 2.2 ft each, in which case, there is every
likelihood of body contact due to sway.
The width of a walkway that can effectively be used by pedestrians is
called the clear walkway width. Poles, signs, and benches, for example,
reduce the effective walkway width. Typical obstructions and the
estimated width of walkways that they preempt are provided in figure 7.
6|Page
Figure 4 Relationship Between Pedestrain Speed and Flow
Figure 5 Relationship Between Pedestrian Flow and Space
7|Page
Figure 6 Relationship between Pedestrian Speed and Flow
2.2.3 Walking Speeds
Many researchers have contributed to measuring walking speeds. Figures
8 and 9 show that there is a wide range of speeds among pedestrians. Trip
purpose, land use, age, and other environmental factors all affect walking
speeds. Designers must adjust numerical analysis to reflect this large
variation in speeds.
2.2.4 Level-of-Service Criteria for Walkways
In pedestrian facility design the basic measure of effectiveness is space.
Capacity is taken to be 25 ped/min/ft. Table 12-2 shows the criteria for
pedestrian level of service. Figure of los illustrates walkway level of
service.
Short-term fluctuations can occur in most pedestrian traffic flow as
pedestrians arrive and depart randomly, such as at sidewalks. When
sidewalks and other facilities show signs of platooning effects, it is
recommended that these surges should be timed and counted. An
expression relating maximum platoon flow rates to average flow rate is
Platoon flow = average flow +4
Where both flows are expressed in ped/min/ft.
2.3 Environmental Factors
The following factors should be considered (TRB, 2000) in designing
pedestrian facilities:
8|Page
1. Comfort: such as weather protection, climate control, transit shelter,
skywalks
2. Convenience: walking distances, directness, grade on ramps, stair
suitable for elderly, directory maps, and other factors that contribute to
the ease of pedestrian movement
3. Safety: separation of pedestrian traffic from vehicular traffic, malls
meant only for pedestrians, traffic control devices that safeguard the lives
of pedestrians
4. Security: lighting, line of sight, crime-free environment
5. Economy: minimization of travel delays
Figure 7 Pre-emption of Walkway Width
9|Page
Figure 8 Pedestrian Walking Speeds
Figure 9 Pedestrian Types and Walking Speeds
10 | P a g e
2.4 Planning for Pedestrians
Careful assessment of demand, design standards, functional elements,
and space design is called for in pedestrian facility planning. It is best to
begin a study by defining the goals and objectives of the project. For
instance, one of the principal objectives in planning a major shopping
center may be to cope with crowds by designing adequate circulation
routes for pedestrians only. Safety may be the predominant objective
when pedestrian-oriented malls permit access to buses, taxis, and
delivery vehicles. A flowchart showing the elements of the pedestrian
facility design process is given in Figure 10.
Pedestrian demand consists of estimating traffic volumes, traffic patterns,
and composition. Land-use patterns and building types will provide
information regarding trip generation. For instance, sports stadiums and
theaters will produce pedestrian movements depending on seats
provided. Some generators will produce high seasonal peak demands.
Optimal space design may be considered as the best functional space
envelope that most economically, effectively, and safely accommodates
the movements of pedestrians. It is common to use the "system"
approach in understanding and in applying the principles of pedestrian
design to all problems. A systems diagram for the design of a subway
transit platform from the point of view of pedestrians is shown in Figure
11. There are particularly good references giving details for designing
pedestrian facilities and these may be consulted for details (Fruin, 1971;
Pushkarev and Zupan, 1975). An analytical approach proposed by Fruin
(1992) and Benz (1987) uses a time-space (T-S) concept, taking into
account the balance between time and space. T-S analysis is particularly
applicable in dealing with complicated cases of personal space
occupancies related to pedestrian activities. T-S supply is the product of
the time of the analysis and the area of the space
11 | P a g e
Figure 10 Elements of Pedestrian Facility Design
being analyzed. Likewise, the T-S demand is the product of the total
number of pedestrians using the analysis space and their time of
occupancy. The objective is to evaluate the adequacy of a given space for
a forecasted peak-period demand and the occupancy time of pedestrians
12 | P a g e
walking or waiting in this space. By dividing the T-S supply by the T-S
demand, the average area occupied per pedestrian and the corresponding
LOS can be determined as follows:
T −s supply TS
a= =
T −S demand nt
Where,
a = average area per pedestrian (ft²/ped) within the analysis space,
during the analysis
T = time of analysis period (min)
S = net effective area of analysis space (ft²)
n = number of pedestrians occupying the space (walking, waiting,
standing, etc.)
t = predicted occupancy times of pedestrians for functions performed
during the analysis period
13 | P a g e
Figure 11 System Description: Transit Platform
14 | P a g e
LOS A
Pedestrian Space > 60 ft²/ped Flow Rate ≤ 5 ped/min/ft
At a walkway LOS A. pedestrians move in desired paths without altering
their movements sin response to other pedestrians. Walking speeds are
freely selected, a and conflicts between pedestrians are unlikely.
LOS B
Pedestrian Space > 40-60 ft²/ped Flow Rate > 5-7 ped/min/ft
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.
LOS C
Pedestrian Space > 24-40 ft²/ped Flow Rate >7-10 ped/min/ft
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.
LOS D
Pedestrian Space > 15-24 ft²/ped Flow Rate > 10-15 ped/min/ft
15 | P a g e
At LOS D, freedom to select individual walking speed and to bypass other
pedestrians is restricted. Crossing or reverse-flow movements face a b
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.
LOS E
Pedestrian Space > 8-15 ft²/ped Flow Rate > 15-23 ped/min/ft
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
LOS F
Pedestrian Space 8 ft²/ped Flow Rate varies ped/min/ft
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 me characteristic of
queued pedestrians than of moving pedestrian streams.
16 | P a g e
3. BICYCLE FACILITIES
Although bicycle traffic composes only a small percentage of the total
traffic stream, it is sufficient enough to have an impact on street planning
and design. Recent accident studies have indicated that the bicyclist has
been increasingly involved in motor car/bi-cycle collisions. Local officials
are therefore taking cognizance of this fact, and many cities have initiated
extensive programs to provide bicycle facilities designated as bike-ways
as well as bicycle lanes on streets and highways. Bicycling is no longer a
recreational pastime, but is considered a feasible alternative to motoring
particularly in milder climates.
3.1 Definitions
A bicycle is defined as a vehicle having two tandem wheels propelled
solely by human power on which any person or persons may ride. A
bikeway is a trail, path, part of a highway or shoulder, sidewalk, or any
other means specifically marked and assigned for bicycle use. Bikeways
are generally classified as follows:
Class I bikeway: completely separated from vehicular traffic and within
an in-dependent right-of-way or the right-of-way of another facility.
Bikeways separated from vehicles but shared by both bicycles and
pedestrians are included in this classification, as shown in Figure 12 (a).
Class II bikeway: part of the roadway or shoulder is marked by
pavement markings or barriers. Vehicle parking, crossing, or turning
movements are per-mitted within the bikeway. This class of bikeway is
shown in Figure 12 (b).
Class III bikeway: shares right-of-way with motor vehicles; are
designated by signing only [Figure 12 (c)]. There is hardly any
protection from motor vehicles, although the signing helps to make the
motorist aware of the presence of bicyclists.
The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) classifies bicycle facilities in
two basic forms. When a portion of a roadway is striped, signed, and
marked for exclusive or preferential use of the bicyclists, it is called a bike
lane. On the other hand, when a bikeway is physically separated from
motorized vehicular traffic, either within the highway right-of-way or
within an independent right-of-way, it is called a bike path.
In addition, the Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) defines
uninterrupted or interrupted bicycle facilities. Uninterrupted facilities
include both exclusive and shared bicycle paths that are physically
separated from vehicular roadways and do not have points of fixed
17 | P a g e
interruption within the path, except at terminal points. Interrupted bi-cycle
facilities include on-street bicycle lanes that pass through signalized and
un-signalized intersections, with or without exclusive right-turn lanes for
motor vehicle traffic.
Figure 12 Bikeway Classification (FHWA, 1980)
3.2 Capacity Implications
Comparatively little is known regarding impacts of bicycles on the
capacity and LOS of highway facilities. The following three aspects of
bicycle capacity have some relevance:
1. The effect of bicycles sharing a lane with other vehicles can be
accounted for by assigning an appropriate passenger-car equivalent (PCE)
for each bicycle.
2. The turning movements of vehicles affect bicycle streams in addition to
conflicts normally presented by opposing streams of pedestrians and
motor vehicles, as presented in Chapters 7 and 9.
3. Bicycles moving straight may be considered as unopposed. Left-turning
bicycles are considered as opposing vehicular flow on two-way streets.
Right-turning bicycles may or may not encounter significant pedestrian
interference, and therefore can be considered as either opposed or
unopposed, depending on pedestrian traffic conditions.
18 | P a g e
Table 12-3 gives the values of passenger-car equivalents for bicycles.
Consider a signalized intersection with a vehicular volume of 700 veh/hr
that shares a 12-ft lane with a vehicular volume of 150 bicycles/hour, one-
half of which are opposed:
Equivalent volume = 700+ (150 × 0.5× 0.5) + (150 × 0.5 × 0.2) 753
veh/hr
The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) provides procedures for
determination of capacity and level of service for the following types of
bicycle facilities:
Exclusive off-street bicycle paths
Shared off-street paths
Bicycle lanes on streets
Interrupted flow bicycle facilities
Bicycle lanes on urban streets
Level-of-service considerations for bicycle lanes on streets only are
included here.
3.2.1 On-Street Bicycle Lanes
Designated bicycle lanes are lanes on a street that are assigned
exclusively for the use of bicycles. These lanes are separated from motor
vehicle traffic by pavement markings. Bicycle lanes are normally placed
on streets where bicycle use is moderate to high and the separation of
bicycles from motor vehicle traffic may be warranted. Bicycle lanes are
generally used for flow in one direction only, with a lane provided on each
side of the street. In some situations, pavement shoulders are part of the
roadway cross-section, but not part of the designated traveled way for
vehicles. Bicycle traffic is separated from motor vehicle traffic by right-
edge marking. Bicycles may use the shoulder much like bicycle lanes.
Such shoulders may occasionally be shared with pedestrians.
The width of on-street bicycle facilities vary widely, ranging from a 4.0 ft
designated lane to a 10-ft paved shoulder. In addition, bicycles can borrow
space from the adjacent lane when motor vehicle traffic is low. Thus it is
19 | P a g e
expected that these facilities can easily operate as two effective bicycle
lanes, with paved shoulder widths up to 6.0 ft. It is recommended that
facility operation should be observed to determine the number of effective
lanes. Level of service of on-street bicycle lanes is impacted by factors like
motor and heavy-vehicle traffic, commercial and residential driveways,
and adjacent on-street parking. Lateral obstructions and long sections
with steep grades may also re-duce the quality of service.
The Highway Capacity Manual (TRB, 2000) recommends a possible
approach to determining LOS for on-street bicycle facilities by quantifying
the impact of prevailing geometric and traffic conditions on the average
and standard deviation of bicycle speeds on the facility. The expectation is
that friction with vehicular traffic, parked vehicles, and driveway density
would result in a lower mean speed and higher standard deviation than on
a comparable off-street path. Table 12-4 lists the number of events.
3.3 Bikeway Location
Usually, bikeway facilities or networks have to be planned and located to
integrate with the existing street and highway network. Barriers and
obstacles then can be identified along each corridor and specific travel
routes assessed for their suitability. Corridor studies provide a rough draft
for preliminary cost estimates. Because bikeways are environmentally
favorable, there is little trouble in going through an environmental impact
analysis.
Some important criteria used in evaluating feasible bikeway routes are as
follows:
1. The potential demand for the use of the route must be determined.
2. The basic width needed for safe operation must be provided. It is best
to consider one-way operation.
3. Continuity and directness of route without much detour is essential,
connecting points of importance.
20 | P a g e
4. Safety is of prime importance. Attempts to minimize
vehicular/pedestrian conflicts should be given the highest priority.
5. Grades should be within tolerable range. A maximum grade of 5% is
desirable
6. The selection of pavement is of greater importance to bicyclists as
compared to motorists. Ride quality of pavement and even safety are
affected by poor pavement surfaces.
7. Areas with heavy automobile emissions, should be avoided; carbon
monoxide is particularly hazardous to pedestrians and bicyclists.
8. Motor vehicle traffic should be avoided, particularly trucks, moving at
speeds of 50 mph, which can upset the balance of a bicyclist.
3.4 Bikeway Design
Highlights of important design elements are as follows (HRB, 1971; ITTE,
1975; FHWA, 1980; Edwards, 1992; Pline, 1992):
Design speed: Although speeds approaching 30 mph are possible,
normal speeds from 7 to 20 mph are common. A working speed of 20
mph may be adopted.
Bikeway width: The bikeway pavement width depends on the bicycle
width, maneuvering allowance, clearance between oncoming and
passing bicycles, and edge conditions. There must be at least 2.5 ft of
horizontal separation between bicycles and pedestrians. A sidewalk
between 11 and 15 ft wide would be required to accommodate
pedestrians and bicyclists. Figure 12-14 shows accepted clearances.
The AASHTO guidelines and FHWA criteria (FHWA, 1976) should be
consulted for desirable widths.
Stopping sight distance: Assuming a perception-reaction time ranging
between 1 and 2.5 sec, Figures 14 and 15 show distances on crest
vertical curves and around horizontal curves, respectively.
Grades: Bicyclists are sensitive to grades. Over short distances of say
100 ft or less, a 10% grade is tolerable, although grades of 4 to 5%
represent the maximum desired.
21 | P a g e
Figure 13 Bikeway Clearance Requirements (FHWA, 1980)
22 | P a g e
Figure 14 Bicycle Stopping Sight Distance on Crest Vertical Curves (FHWA, 1980)
23 | P a g e
Figure 15 Sight Distance Around Horizontal Curves
24 | P a g e
4. REFRENCES
1. Transportation Engineering by Jotin Khristry & B. Kent Lall, 3 rd Edition
2. IRC 103:2012 Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities
3. IRC SP:056 2011 Guidelines for Steel Pedestrian Bridges
25 | P a g e