Advertisement

Pedestrian Facilities and Perceived Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS): A Case Study of Chittagong Metropolitan Area, Bangladesh

  • Khatun E. ZannatEmail author
  • Debasish Roy Raja
  • Mohammed Sarfaraz Gani Adnan
Original Article
  • 86 Downloads

Abstract

The promotion of active transport (a type of sustainable transportation) such as walking is a form of response against environmental pollution engendering from transport sector. Pedestrian level of service (PLOS) is a measurement tool to evaluate the degree of pedestrian accommodation on roadway to provide a comfortable and safe walking environment. The roadway characteristics-based model to measure PLOS has been widely applied since this approach is conceived as being transferable to different contexts. We present a comprehensive framework to measure the influence of pedestrian facilities on perceived PLOS qualitatively and quantitatively. We modeled triangular relationships among pedestrian facilities, perceived roadway conditions (accessibility, safety, comfort, and attractiveness), and perceived PLOS to identify pedestrian facilities, related to footpath, carriageway, and transit, influencing perceived PLOS. We developed these models for a case study of Chittagong Metropolitan Area in Bangladesh. Poor condition of pedestrian facilities in the region resulted in PLOS B as the highest tier of perceived PLOS. Findings of this study showed that accessibility and attractiveness influenced the perceived PLOS for footpath, carriageway, and transit, whereas safety is an important roadway condition for carriageway and transit facilities. We further measured the influence of 22 selected parameters of pedestrian facilities on roadway conditions and perceived PLOS. We concluded that achieving a better perceived PLOS is dependent on the availability, maintenance, and planning of different pedestrian facilities, as improper placement and poor condition of such facilities increased the probability that a lower level PLOS will be perceived.

Keywords

Active transport Walking Pedestrian facilities Pedestrian level of service Roadway condition Chittagong 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are pleased to express our gratitude to the Department of Urban and Regional Planning (DURP) of Chittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET) for providing logistic support to carry out this study. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and insightful comments and suggestions.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Black WR (2010) Sustainable transportation: problems and solutions. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Winters M, Friesen MC, Koehoorn M, Teschke K (2007) Utilitarian bicycling: a multilevel analysis of climate and personal influences. Am J Prev Med 32(1):52–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Clark SD (2009) The determinants of car ownership in England and Wales from anonymous 2001 census data. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 17(5):526–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kenworthy JR, Laube FB (1999) Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 33(7):691–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wee BV (2007) Environmental effects of urban traffic. Threats from car traffic to the quality of urban life: problems, causes and solutions. Emerald Group, Bingley, pp 9–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Baltes M (1996) Factors influencing nondiscretionary work trips by bicycle determined from 1990 US census metropolitan statistical area data. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1538:96–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gouda AA, Masoumi HE (2017) Sustainable transportation according to certification systems: a viability analysis based on neighborhood size and context relevance. Environ Impact Assess Rev 63:147–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oswald Beiler MR (2016) Sustainable mobility for the future: development and implementation of a sustainable transportation planning course. J Profess Issues Eng Educ Pract 143(1):05016007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pucher J, Buehler R, Bassett DR, Dannenberg AL (2010) Walking and cycling to health: a comparative analysis of city, state, and international data. Am J Public Health 100(10):1986–1992CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    De Geus B, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Jannes C, Meeusen R (2008) Psychosocial and environmental factors associated with cycling for transport among a working population. Health Educ Res 23(4):697–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hart J, Parkhurst G (2011) Driven to excess: impacts of motor vehicles on the quality of life of residents of three streets in Bristol UK. World Transp Policy Pract 17(2):12–30Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones TF, Eaton CB (1994) Cost-benefit analysis of walking to prevent coronary heart disease. Arch Fam Med 3(8):703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bopp M, Gayah VV, Campbell ME (2015) Examining the link between public transit use and active commuting. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(4):4256–4274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaczynski AT, Bopp MJ, Wittman P (2010) Association of workplace supports with active commuting. Prev Chron Dis 7(6):A127Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Caspersen CJ, Pereira MA, Curran KM (2000) Changes in physical activity patterns in the United States, by sex and cross-sectional age. Med Sci Sports Exerc 32(9):1601–1609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cohen JM, Boniface S, Watkins S (2014) Health implications of transport planning, development and operations. J Transp Health 1(1):63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gordon-Larsen P, Nelson MC, Beam K (2005) Associations among active transportation, physical activity, and weight status in young adults. Obes Res 13(5):868–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis A (2010) Value for money: an economic assessment of investment in walking and cycling. Department of Health and Government Office of the South-west, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen SH, Wu CC, Li PY, Adhitana Paramitha P (2017) Evaluation of pedestrian transportation facilities in Taiwan using linear regression and support vector regression. Road Mater Pavem Des 18:170–179.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2017.1329872 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Talavera-Garcia R, Soria-Lara JA (2015) Q-PLOS, developing an alternative walking index. A method based on urban design quality. Cities 45:7–17.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.03.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kang L, Xiong Y, Mannering FL (2013) Statistical analysis of pedestrian perceptions of sidewalk level of service in the presence of bicycles. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 53:10–21.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daniel BD, Nor SNM, Md Rohani M, Prasetijo J, Aman MY, Ambak K (2016) Pedestrian footpath level of service (FOOT-LOS) model for Johor Bahru. In: MATEC web of conferences, 2016.  https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/20164703006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Asadi-Shekari Z, Moeinaddini M, Zaly Shah M (2013) Non-motorised level of service: addressing challenges in pedestrian and bicycle level of service. Transp Rev 33(2):166–194.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2013.775613 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hasan T, Siddique A, Hadiuzzaman M, Musabbir SR (2015) Determining the most suitable pedestrian level of service method for Dhaka city, Bangladesh, through a synthesis of measurements. Transp Res Rec.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2519-12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Asadi-Shekari Z, Moeinaddini M, Shah MZ (2014) A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy 38:175–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kim S, Choi J, Kim S (2013) Roadside walking environments and major factors affecting pedestrian level of service. Int J Urb Sci 17(3):304–315Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarkar S (1993) Determination of service levels for pedestrians, with European examples. Transp Res Rec 1405:35Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Henson C (2000) Levels of service for pedestrians. ITE J 70(9):26–30Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Landis B, Vattikuti V, Ottenberg R, McLeod D, Guttenplan M (2001) Modeling the roadside walking environment: pedestrian level of service. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1773:82–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mia MA, Nasrin S, Zhang M, Rasiah R (2015) Chittagong, Bangladesh. Cities 48:31–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alam M, Mainuddin K, Rahman A, Uzzaman R (2007) Governance screening for urban climate change resilience-building and adaptation strategies in asia: assessment of Chittagong City, Bangladesh. Report of the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS). Institute of Development Studies. Report of the Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS) Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex 15Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hoque MM, Pervaz S, Paul AK (2016) Safety ratings of complex pedestrian routes in Dhaka metropolitan city. In: ARRB conference, 27th, 2016, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    CDA (2009) Preparation of detailed area plan (DAP) for Chittagong Metropolitan Master Plan (CMMP). Chittagong Chittagong Development Authority, ChittagongGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhou H, Hsu P, Chen S (2010) Identifying key factors affecting students’ travel modes using the multi-perspectives diagnosis approach. Traff Transp Stud 2010:545–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kadali BR, Vedagiri P (2015) Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of land-use. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 73:113–124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Israel GD (1992) Determining sample size. PEOD6. Agricultural Education and Communication Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Washington SP, Karlaftis MG, Mannering F (2010) Statistical and econometric methods for transportation data analysis. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Midi H, Sarkar SK, Rana S (2010) Collinearity diagnostics of binary logistic regression model. J Interdiscip Math 13(3):253–267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09720502.2010.10700699 CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ghasemi A, Zahediasl S (2012) Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int J Endocrinol Metab 10(2):486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Spiegel MR, Schiller JJ, Srinivasan RA, LeVan M (2009) Probability and statistics, vol 2. Mcgraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Team RC, Worldwide C (2002) The R stats package. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  42. 42.
    Leeper TJ (2017) Interpreting regression results using average marginal effects with R’s margins. Tech. rep. URL https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/margins/index.html. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  43. 43.
    Gotschi T (2011) Costs and benefits of bicycling investments in Portland, Oregon. J Phys Act Health 8(s1):S49–S58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Regional PlanningChittagong University of Engineering and Technology (CUET)ChittagongBangladesh
  2. 2.Environmental Change Institute, School of Geography and the EnvironmentUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations