0070C0 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)

Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations

Intersection and Mid-Block Crossings

Introduction:

The Worksheets provide a procedure for evaluating the Level of Service (LOS) at uncontrolled pedestrian
crossings according to the methodology presented in Chapter 19 of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual.
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings include: marked crossings at mid-block locations; marked crossings at
intersections; and unmarked crossings at intersections, that are not controlled by a traffic control device such
as signals and stop or yield signs.

Use of these Worksheets in Microsoft Excel results in an automated procedure. While this automated
procedure has been checked for accuracy using multiple examples, no warranty is made by the developers as
to the accuracy, completeness, or reliability of the equations and results. No responsibility is assumed for
incorrect results or damages resulting from the use of these worksheets.

This process is not for use at signalized crossings and has not been verified to be accurate for unsignalized
pedestrian crossings within a signalized corridor.

The equations and methodology presented through this process is contained within the 2010 Highway
Capacity Manual (HCM). Any questions on the approach, assumptions, and limitations of the procedure or
for verification of equations are directed to the 2010 HCM.

This material was developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. in coordination with the Local Road Research Board
(LRRB) for the use by practicioners. These Worksheets are made without charge and under no circumstances
shall be sold by third parties for profit.

Submitted for Approval: May 12, 2014

Updated June 6, 2014

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Intersection and Mid-Block Crossings

Developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for

the Local Road Research Board Introduction Page 1 of 5

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Intersection and Mid-Block Crossings

Crossing Location: Date:

City, State: Scenario:
Reviewer(s): Agency:
Project Number: ID #:

The following is the base information needed to complete the analysis.

If this is a one-stage crossing, use only Crossing 1.
If this is a two-stage crossing, each stage must be evaluated separately using Crossing 1 and Crossing 2.

Crossing 1:
Evaluation Inputs: defaults: Input Table:
L = crosswalk length (ft) L=
Sp = average pedestrian walking speed (ft/s) Sp = 3.5 Sp =
ts = pedestrian start-up and end clearance time (s) ts = 3.0 ts =
V = vehicular hourly volume (veh/hr) V=
vp = pedestrian flow rate (ped/s) vp = 0* vp =
v = vehicular flow rate (veh/s) = V/3600 v= V/3600 v=
Wc = crosswalk width (ft) Wc = 8.0 Wc =
N = number of through lanes crossed (Integer) N = INT(L/11) N=
*no platooning observed

Crossing 2: (only used for two-stage crossings)

Evaluation Inputs: defaults: Input Table:
L = crosswalk length (ft) L=
Sp = average pedestrian walking speed (ft/s) Sp = 3.5 Sp =
ts = pedestrian start-up and end clearance time (s) ts = 3.0 ts =
V = vehicular hourly volume (veh/hr) V=
vp = pedestrian flow rate (ped/s) vp = 0* vp =
v = vehicular flow rate (veh/s) = V/3600 v= V/3600 v=
Wc = crosswalk width (ft) Wc = 8.0 Wc =
N = number of through lanes crossed (Integer) N = INT(L/11) N=
*no platooning observed

Crossing Treatment Yield Rate Input Table:

My = motorist yield rate (decimal) My =

Entering data into the tables above will populate the evaluation tables in Microsoft Excel.

Results:
Average Delay sec/ped
LOS

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM)
Pedestrian Level of Service (LOS) at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations
Intersection and Mid-Block Crossings

Developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc.

for the Local Road Research Board Inputs and Results Page 2 of 5

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet
Crossing Location: Date:
City, State: Scenario:
Reviewer(s): Agency:
Step 1: Identify Is there a median available for a two-stage crossing? Yes No
Two-Stage If yes, does the median refuge meet ADA requirements (4' x 4' landing)? Yes No
Crossings If yes, do pedestrians treat this as a two-stage crossing location? Yes No
Critical headway is the time below which a pedestrian will not attempt to begin crossing the street.
Pedestrians use judgement to determine whether the available headway is sufficent for a safe crossing.
For a single pedestrian: where: tc = critical headway for a single pedestrian (s)
t_c= L/S_p L = crosswalk length (ft)
+t_s Sp = average pedestrian walking speed (ft/s)
ts = pedestrian start-up and end clearance time (s)
crossing 1 crossing 2 Sp = 3.5 ft/s
L= ts = L= ts = ts = 3 sec
Sp = tc = Sp = tc =
If pedestrian platooning is observed, the spatial distribution of pedestrians should be computed:
1. use field observations or estimate platoon size using equation:
N_c= (v_p e^(v_p t_c )+ 〖 ve 〗 ^ where: Nc = total number of pedestrians in crossing platoon
(ped)
( 〖 -vt 〗 _c ))/(v_p+v)e^((v_p-v)
t_c ) vp = pedestrian flow rate (ped/s)
Step 2:
Determine crossing 1 crossing 2 v = vehicular flow rate across crossing (veh/s)
Critical vp = tc = vp = tc = tc = single pedestrian critical headway (s)
Headway Nc = Nc =
v= v=
2. compute spatial distribution:
where: Np = spatial distributions of pedestrians (ped)
N_p= INT[8.0(N_c-1)/W_c ]
Nc = total number of pedestrians in crossing platoon
(ped)
crossing 1 crossing 2 Wc = crosswalk width (ft)
Nc = Nc = 8.0 = default clear width used by a single pedestrian
Wc = Np = Wc = Np = to avoid interference with other pedestrians (ft)

3. compute group critical headway: clear width, if other than 8: ft.

where: tc,G = group critical headway (s)
t_(c,G)= t_c+2(N_p-1)
tc = single pedestrian critical headway (s)
crossing 1 crossing 2 Np = spatial distributions of pedestrians (ped)
Np = Np =
tc = tc,G = tc = tc,G =
Probability that a pedestrian will not incur any crossing delay is equal to the likelihood that a pedestrian will
encounter a gap greater than or equal to the critical headway immediately upon arrival at the intersection.

P_b=1- e^(( 〖 - where: Pb = probability of blocked lane

Step 3: Estimate t 〗 _(c,G) v)/L) Pd = probability of delayed crossing
Probability of a P_d=1- (1- P_b )^L N = number of through lanes crossed
Delayed
Crossing crossing 1 crossing 2 tc,G = group critical headway (s) = tc, if no platooning
tc,G = tc,G = v = vehicular flow rate across crossing(veh/s)
v= Pb = v= Pb =
N= Pd = N= Pd =

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet
Developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the LRRB. HCM Calculations Sheet 1 Page 3 of 5

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet
Average delay assumes that no motor vehicles yield and the pedestrian is forced to wait for an adequate gap.
d_g= 1/v (e^(vt_(c,G) )- where: dg = average pedestrian gap delay (s)
〖 vt 〗 _(c,G)-1) tc,G = group critical headway (s)
crossing 1 crossing 2 v = vehicular flow rate across crossing (veh/s)
tc,G = tc,G =
Step 4:
Calculate v= dg = v= dg =
Average Delay Average delay for a pedestrian who is unable to cross immediately upon reaching the intersection
to Wait for (e.g., any pedestrian experiencing nonzero delay.)
Adequate Gap
d_gd= d_g/P_d where: dgd = average gap delay for pedestrians who
incur nonzero delay
crossing 1 crossing 2 dg = average pedestrian gap delay (s)
dg = dg = Pd = probability of a delayed crossing
Pd = dgd = Pd = dgd =

When a pedestrian arrives at a crossing and finds an inadequate gap, that pedestrian is delayed until one of two
situations occurs: (a) a gap greater than the critical headway is available, or (b) motor vehicles yield and allow the
pedestrian to cross. While motorists are legally required to stop for crossing pedestrians in MN at all
intersections and at all marked crossings, motorist yield rates actually vary considerably.

Some crossing treatments and yield rates based on research are provided on the next page.
Average pedestrian delay where: dp = average pedestrian delay (s)
d_p= ∑1_(i=1)^n▒h(i-0.5) P(Y_i )+ (P_d- i = crossing event (i=1 to n)
∑1_(i=1)^n▒P(Y_i ) ) d_gd h = average headway for each through lane = N/v
P(Yi) = probability that motorists yield to
Step 5: Estimate crossing 1 crossing 2 pedestrian on crossing event i
Delay Reduction
due to Yielding h= n= h= n= n = Int(dgd/h), average number of crossing
Vehicles dp = dp = events before an adequate gap is available, >0
1. One-Lane Crossing j = crossing event (j=0 to i-1)
(If yielding is
zero, then skip P(Y_i )= P_d M_y (1- M_y )^(i-1) P(Yj) = probability that motorists yield to
step 5) pedestrian on crossing event j
2. Two-Lane Crossing My = motorist yield rate (decimal) My =
P(Y_i )= [P_d- ∑1_(j=0)^(i-1)▒P(Y_j ) ][((2P_b (1-P_b ) M_y )+
( 〖 P_b 〗 ^2 〖 M_y 〗 ^2 ))/P_d ]

3. Three-Lane Crossing
P(Y_i )= [P_d- ∑1_(j=0)^(i-1)▒P(Y_j ) ][( 〖 P_b 〗 ^3 〖 M_y 〗 ^3+3 〖 P_b 〗 ^2 (1-P_b Summary
) 〖 M_y 〗 ^2+3P_b (1-P_b )^2 M_y)/P_d ] Average
Delay
4. Four-Lane Crossing LOS
P(Y_i )= [P_d- ∑1_(j=0)^(i-1)▒P(Y_j ) ]x [( 〖 P_b 〗 ^4
〖 M_y 〗 ^4+4 〖 P_b 〗 ^3 (1-P_b ) 〖 M_y 〗 ^3+6 〖 P_b 〗 ^2 (1-P_b )^2
〖 M_y 〗 ^2+4P_b (1- 〖 P_b 〗 ^3 ) M_y)/P_d ]
LOS Control Delay (sec/ped) Comments
Step 6: A 0-5 Usually no conflicting traffic
Calculate
Average B 5-10 Occasionally some delay due to conflicting traffic
Pedestrian C 10-20 Delay noticeable to pedestrians, but not inconvienencing
Delay &
Determine LOS D 20-30 Delay noticeable/irritating, increased chance of risk-taking
E 30-45 Delay approaches tolerance level, risk-taking likely
F >45 Delay exceeds tolerance level, high chance of risk-taking

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet
Developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the LRRB. HCM Calculations Sheet 2 Page 4 of 5

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet

Determine if there is a crossing treatment used that could provide vehicle yielding. This then
provides a possible reduction in delay.
Crossing Treatment Staged Pedestrian Yield Rate Unstaged Pedestrian Yield Rate
Crosswalk Markings and Signs
7% 7%
Only (1)

Median Refuge Islands (1) 34% 29%

Pedestal Mounted Flashing

N/A 57%
Beacon (2-Lane, 35 mph) (3)
Overhead Flashing Beacon
47% 49%
(push-button activation) (1)
Overhead Flashing Beacon
31% 67%
(passive activation) (1)
Motorist Yield Rate = My

Pedestrian Crossing Flags (1) 65% 74%

School Crossing Guards (5) N/A 86%

In-street Crossing Signs

87% 90%
(25-30 mph) (1)
Warning Sign with Edge Mounted
N/A 28%
LEDs (6)

In-road warning lights (1) N/A 66%

High-visibility Signs and

17% 20%
Markings (35 mph) (1)
High-visibility Signs and
61% 91%
Markings (25 mph) (1)
Rectangular Rapid-Flash Beacon
84% 81%
(RRFB) (2)(4)
School Crossing Guards
N/A 91%
with RRFB (5)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
97% 99%
(HAWK) (1)
N/A: No Research Found on Effect to Yielding Rate
Sources: (1) Fitzpatrick, K., S.M. Turner, M. Brewer, P.J. Carlson, B. Ullman, N.D. Trout, E.S. Park, J. Whitacre, N. Lalani, and D. Lord.
NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Crossings. Transportation Research Board of the National
Academies, Washington D.C., 2006.
(2) Lewis, R., J.R. Ross, D.S. Serpico : Assessment of Driver Yield Rates Pre- and Post-RRFB Installation, Bend, Oregon. Oregon
Department of Transportation, Washington D.C., 2011.
(3) Bolton & Menk Field Data Collection
(4) Transportation Research Board, HCM 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, Washington D.C.: National Academy of Sciences,
2010.
(5) Brewer, Marcus A., Kay Fitzpatrick. Before-and-After Study of the Effectiveness of Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacons
Used with School Sign in Garland, Texas. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, TX, April 2012.
(6) Kipp, Wendy M.E., Jennifer M. V. Fitch. Evaluation of SmartStud In-Pavement Crosswalk Lighting System and BlinkerSign
Interim Report. Vermont Agency of Transportation, Report 2011-3, Montpelier, VT, February 2011. (Rate Normalized to High
Visibility Markings and Signs at 35 mph)

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet

 0070C0Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Level of Service
Evaluation Worksheet
Developed by Bolton & Menk, Inc. for the LRRB. Yield Rates (My) Page 5 of 5

0070C0HCM Evaluation Worksheet