Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Analysing the impact of socio-economic variables, travel characteristics, and psychological factors on the selection of crossing facilities under time pressure

  • Case Study
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Examining the utilization of pedestrian crossing infrastructure under time pressure is crucial due to its profound impact on pedestrian safety and decision-making. This study addresses this gap by investigating pedestrian crossing preferences under temporal constraints, introducing time pressure as a novel aspect in the existing literature, particularly in the context of developing countries. Additionally, this research advances existing studies by incorporating attitudinal and perception-related variables, including income level, walking behaviour, and perceived walking speed. The research was conducted in Bhopal city, India, focusing on three junctions (New market, Bagsewania, and M.P Nagar). A total of 613 pedestrians were surveyed to develop a discrete choice model and identify the main factors influencing their selection of crossing facilities under time pressure. The findings reveal that the socio-economic variables (age, income), travel behaviour, and psychological factors (risk perception, perceived convenience) significantly influence choice of crossing infrastructure under time pressure. Furthermore, it was found that aged individuals, those with higher incomes, and individuals perceiving elevated crash risks tend to favour subways. Conversely, routine walkers with lower crash risk perceptions lean towards direct crossings. These nuanced findings provide transportation planners and policymakers with crucial insights into pedestrian behaviour under time pressure, guiding the development of more effective and targeted interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

(Source: Authors’ compilation)

Fig. 2

(Source: Authors’ compilation). Source: Commissionerate of Police Bhopal [58]

Fig. 3

(Source: Authors)

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Saxena A, Choudhury B (2022) Internalizing the externalities of urban private transport–a case of Gurugram, national capital Region, India. Case Stud Transp Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saxena A, Yadav AK (2023) Adopting a multi-criteria decision-making approach to identify barriers to electrification of urban freight in India. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board. https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981231176812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saxena A, Yadav AK (2022) Clustering pedestrians ’ perceptions towards road infrastructure and traffic characteristics. Int J Inj Contr Saf Promot 30(1):68–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2022.2112234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Theofilatos A, Ziakopoulos A, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Timmis A (2021) To cross or not to cross? Review and meta-analysis of pedestrian gap acceptance decisions at midblock street crossings. J Transp Heal 22(June):101108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. WHO (2015) GLOBAL STATUS REPORT ON ROAD SAFETY, World Health Organisation

  6. World Health Organization WHO (2013) More than 270 000 pedestrians killed on roads each year, World Health Organisation

  7. Saxena A, Yadav AK (2023) Investigating the impact of gender and work profile on attribute importance for mode choice: a multi-criteria decision-making approach. Case Stud Transp Policy 12:100994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2023.100994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. MORTH, “Road Accidents in India 2019, Minist. Road Transp. Highw. Gov. India, 2020, [Online]. Available: https://morth.nic.in/sites/default/files/RA_Uploading.pdf.

  9. Sivasankaran SK, Natarajan P, Balasubramanian V (2020) Identifying patterns of pedestrian crashes in urban metropolitan roads in india using association rule mining. Transp Res Proc 48(2019):3496–3507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. MORTH (2023) Road accidents in India 202., Transp Res Wing, Minist Road Transp Highw India

  11. Pawar DS, Yadav AK (2022) Modelling the pedestrian dilemma zone at uncontrolled midblock sections. J Saf Res 80:87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2021.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Rankavat S, Tiwari G (2016) Pedestrians perceptions for utilization of pedestrian facilities–Delhi, India. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 42:495–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jain U, Rastogi R (2020) Revision of pv2 criteria based pedestrian crossing warrants. Transport 35(2):168–178. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2020.12474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Banerjee A, Raoniar R, Maurya AK (2020) Pedestrian overpass utilization modeling based on mobility friction, safety and security, and connectivity using machine learning techniques. Soft Comput 24(22):17467–17493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-020-05277-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kadali BR, Vedagiri P (2018) Pedestrian quality of service at unprotected mid-block crosswalk locations under mixed traffic conditions: towards quantitative approach. Transport 33(2):302–314. https://doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1183227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Ishaque MM, Noland RB (2008) Behavioural issues in pedestrian speed choice and street crossing behaviour: a review. Transp Rev 28(1):61–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701365239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Landa-Blanco M, Ávila J (2020) Factors related to the use of pedestrian bridges in university students of Honduras. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 71:220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zafri NM, Tabassum T, Himal MRH, Sultana R, Debnath AK (2022) Effect of pedestrian characteristics and their road crossing behaviors on driver yielding behavior at controlled intersections. J Saf Res 81:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Al Bargi WA, Daniel BD (2020) Modelling pedestrians utilization of crossing facilities along urban streets. Case Stud Transp Policy 8(2):593–598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.12.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Young DL, Goodie AS, Hall DB, Wu E (2012) Decision making under time pressure, modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 118(2):179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kerstholt JH (1994) The effect of time pressure on decision-making behaviour in a dynamic task environment. Acta Psychol (Amst) 86(1):89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(94)90013-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Edland A, Svenson O (1993) Judgment and decision making under time pressure. Time Press Stress Hum Judgm Decis Mak. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-6846-6_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Tian K et al (2022) Impacts of visual and cognitive distractions and time pressure on pedestrian crossing behaviour: a simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 174(March):106770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. IRC, (2012) Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities Indian Roads Congress, INDIAN ROAD Congr., (pp. 103–2012)

  25. Razak SFA, Yogarayan S, Aziz AA, Abdullah MFA, Kamis NH (2022) Physiological-based driver monitoring systems: a scoping review. Civ Eng J 8(12):3952–3967. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-12-020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Truong LT, Thai NH, Le TV, Debnath AK (2022) Pedestrian distraction: Mobile phone use and its associations with other risky crossing behaviours and conflict situations. Saf Sci 153(May):105816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105816

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Duim E, Lebrão ML, Antunes JLF (2017) Walking speed of older people and pedestrian crossing time. J Transp Heal 5(February):70–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2017.02.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Olowosegun A, Babajide N, Akintola A, Fountas G, Fonzone A (2022) Analysis of pedestrian accident injury-severities at road junctions and crossings using an advanced random parameter modelling framework: the case of Scotland. Accid Anal Prev 169:106610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106610

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hou M, Chen S, Cheng J (2022) The effect of risk perception and other psychological factors on mobile phone use while crossing the street among pedestrians. Accid Anal Prev 170:106643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. O’Dell AL, Filtness AJ, Morris AP (2022) Predicting the intention of distracted pedestrians at road crossings. Accid Anal Prev 173(May):106707. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106707

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Vedagiri P, Kadali BR (2016) Evaluation of pedestrian-vehicle conflict severity at unprotected midblock crosswalks in India. Transp Res Rec 2581:48–56. https://doi.org/10.3141/2581-06

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Banerjee A, Maurya AK (2020) A comparative study of pedestrian movement behavior over foot over bridges under similar land-use type. Transp Res Proc 48(2019):3342–3354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tiwari G, Bangdiwala S, Saraswat A, Gaurav S (2007) Survival analysis: pedestrian risk exposure at signalized intersections. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 10(2):77–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2006.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Pawar NM, Velaga NR, Mishra S (2022) Impact of time pressure on acceleration behavior and crossing decision at the onset of yellow signal. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 87:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.03.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Chaudhari A, Gore N, Arkatkar S, Joshi G, Pulugurtha S (2021) Exploring pedestrian surrogate safety measures by road geometry at midblock crosswalks: a perspective under mixed traffic conditions. IATSS Res 45(1):87–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Aghabayk K, Esmailpour J, Jafari A, Shiwakoti N (2021) Observational-based study to explore pedestrian crossing behaviors at signalized and unsignalized crosswalks. Accid Anal Prev 151:105990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.105990

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cantillo V, Arellana J, Rolong M (2015) Modelling pedestrian crossing behaviour in urban roads: a latent variable approach. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 32:56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Patra M, Perumal V, Rao KVK (2020) Modelling the effects of risk factor and time savings on pedestrians’ choice of crossing facilities at signalised intersections. Case Stud Transp Policy 8(2):460–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2019.10.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Meneses NAI, Buluran JS (2022) Analysis of pedestrian performance by integrating both quantitative and qualitative factors. Civ Eng J 8(6):1100–1114. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-06-02

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Arellana J, Fernández S, Figueroa M, Cantillo V (2022) Analyzing pedestrian behavior when crossing urban roads by combining RP and SP data. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 85:259–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2022.01.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Mfinanga DA (2014) Implication of pedestrians’ stated preference of certain attributes of crosswalks. Transp Policy 32:156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.01.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Obeng-Atuah D, Poku-Boansi M, Cobbinah PB (2017) Pedestrian crossing in urban Ghana: safety implications. J Transp Heal 5:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2016.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hasan R, Napiah M (2017) Utilization of footbridges: Influential factors and improvement proposals. Adv Transp Stud 43:43–60. https://doi.org/10.4399/97888255077374

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Zhang C, Zhou B, Qiu TZ, Liu S (2018) Pedestrian crossing behaviors at uncontrolled multi-lane mid-block crosswalks in developing world. J Saf Res 64:145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.12.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Dey D, Martens M, Eggen B, Terken J (2019) Pedestrian road-crossing willingness as a function of vehicle automation, external appearance, and driving behaviour. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 65:191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Soares F, Silva E, Pereira F, Silva C, Sousa E, Freitas E (2021) To cross or not to cross: Impact of visual and auditory cues on pedestrians’ crossing decision-making. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 82(September):202–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Kwon J, Kim J, Kim S, Cho G (2022) Pedestrians safety perception and crossing behaviors in narrow urban streets: an experimental study using immersive virtual reality technology. Accid Anal Prev 174:106757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Silla I, Gamero N (2018) Psychological safety climate and professional drivers’ well-being: the mediating role of time pressure. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 53:84–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Techer F et al (2019) Anger and highly automated driving in urban areas: the role of time pressure. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 64:353–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.05.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Pawar NM, Velaga NR (2020) Modelling the influence of time pressure on reaction time of drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 72:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ge Y, Liu X, Shen B, Qu W (2022) Does a prosocial attitude reduce risky driving behaviour under time pressure? Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 84:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2021.11.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Fitzpatrick CD, Samuel S, Knodler MA (2017) The use of a driving simulator to determine how time pressures impact driver aggressiveness. Accid Anal Prev 108(February):131–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Gupta M, Pawar NM, Velaga NR, Mishra S (2022) Modeling distraction tendency of motorized two-wheeler drivers in time pressure situations. Saf Sci 154:105820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105820

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Dhoke A, Choudhary P (2023) Is there a relationship between time pressure and pedestrian non-compliance? A systematic review. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 93(January):68–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Morrongiello BA, Corbett M, Switzer J, Hall T (2015) Using a virtual environment to study pedestrian behaviors: how does time pressure affect children’s and adults’ street crossing behaviors? J Pediatr Psychol 40(7):697–703. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsv019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. B. city link limited BCLL (2019) Sustainable urban transport index Bhopal

  57. CMP, Comprehensive Mobility Plan for Bhopal (2012) Bhopal Munic Corp

  58. Mishra S (2023) Most accident prone location in Bhopal, The Times of India, Bhopal,

  59. TNCP Bhopal (2019) Bhopal Development Plan-2031, (Draft) Volume–II (Planning Proposals and recommendations), Dir. T. Ctry. Planning, Government Madhya Pradesh

  60. Susanto TD, Diani MM, Hafidz I (2017) User acceptance of e-government citizen report system (a Case Study of City113 App). Proc Comput Sci 124:560–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Alsaleh R, Sayed T, Zaki MH (2018) Assessing the effect of pedestrians’ use of cell phones on their walking behavior: a study based on automated video analysis. Transp Res Rec 2672(35):46–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118780708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Lennon A, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Matthews S (2017) Pedestrian self-reported use of smart phones: positive attitudes and high exposure influence intentions to cross the road while distracted. Accid Anal Prev 98(2017):338–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.10.028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Larue GS, Watling CN (2022) Prevalence and dynamics of distracted pedestrian behaviour at railway level crossings: emerging issues. Accid Anal Prev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zafri NM, Rony AI, Adri N (2019) Analysis of pedestrian crossing speed and waiting time at intersections in Dhaka. Infrastructures. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures4030039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Prajapati M, Advani M, Parida P (2018) Identifying the most suitable road crossing infrastructure based on estimated delay to pedestrians and vehicle users. Transp Lett 10(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/19427867.2016.1237821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Alonso F, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Gene-Morales J, Useche SA (2021) Assessing risky and protective behaviors among pedestrians in the Dominican Republic: New evidence about pedestrian safety in the Caribbean. J Transp Heal 22:101145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. William H (2002) Greene, Econometric analysis

  68. McGwin G, Brown DB (1999) Characteristics of traffic crashes among young, middle-aged, and older drivers. Accid Anal Prev 31(3):181–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(98)00061-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Finn P, Bragg BWE (1986) Perception of the risk of an accident. Accid Anal Prev 18(4):289–298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Jonah BA (1986) Accident risk and risk-taking behaviour among young drivers. Accid Anal Prev 18(4):255–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(86)90041-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Rankavat S, Tiwari G (2016) Pedestrians risk perception of traffic crash and built environment features-Delhi, India. Saf Sci 87:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.03.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Anciaes PR, Jones P (2018) Estimating preferences for different types of pedestrian crossing facilities. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 52:222–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Muhammad T, Maurya P, Sharma P (2021) Prevalence and correlates of bone and joint diseases and its association with falls among older adults in India: Evidence from LASI, 2017–18. Geriatr Nurs (Minneap) 42(5):1143–1150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2021.07.007

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Chowdhury S, Chakraborty PP (2017) Universal health coverage—there is more to it than meets the eye. J Fam Med Prim Care 6(2):169–170. https://doi.org/10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Saxena A (2023) Texting and crossing: an extended theory of planned behaviour to model the psychological and demographic factors related to pedestrians’ use of cell phone for texting at crosswalks in developing country. IATSS Res 47(1):50–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2023.01.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Saxena A (2023) Assessing the factors affecting the perceived crossing speed of pedestrians and investigating the direct and indirect effects of crash risk perception on perceived crossing speed. J Transp Heal 28:101541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Saxena A, Reashma PS, Kabade B (2024) Pedestrian perception of safety in areas with newly provided pedestrian facility: the case of Bangalore’s tender SURE (specifications for urban utilities and road execution project), In: Recent Advances in traffic engineering. RATE 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 377, (pp. 35–55), https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-4464-4_3.

  78. McIlroy RC et al (2020) Exploring the relationships between pedestrian behaviours and traffic safety attitudes in six countries. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 68:257–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.11.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Mofadal AIA, Kanitpong K, Jiwattanakulpaisarn P (2015) Analysis of pedestrian accident costs in Sudan using the willingness-to-pay method. Accid Anal Prev 78:201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.02.022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Erro-Garcés A, Aramendia-Muneta ME, Errea M, Cabases-Hita JM (2022) Perceived health and earnings: evidence from the European working conditions survey 2015. Int J Environ Res Public Health. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Navarro-rosas AA, Antonio S (2022) Pedestrian behavior in signalized intersections: Santiago de Quer ´ etaro. J Transp Heal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Koh PP, Wong YD, Chandrasekar P (2014) Safety evaluation of pedestrian behaviour and violations at signalised pedestrian crossings. Saf Sci 70:143–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.05.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Jomnonkwao S, Wisutwattanasak P, Ratanavaraha V (2021) Factors influencing willingness to pay for accident risk reduction among personal car drivers in Thailand. PLoS ONE 16:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260666

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Urban Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, Pin Code: 400076, India

    Aditya Saxena, Ahana Sarkar & Arnab Jana

Authors
  1. Aditya Saxena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahana Sarkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arnab Jana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aditya Saxena.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors confirm and declare that the paper has no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saxena, A., Sarkar, A. & Jana, A. Analysing the impact of socio-economic variables, travel characteristics, and psychological factors on the selection of crossing facilities under time pressure. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9, 90 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01400-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01400-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation