Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF

Highway Capacity Manual 20 I 0
CHAPTER 23
OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILIDES
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 23-l
()verview ........................... ............. .................... ................. ............ .................... 23-1
Analysis Boundaries........................................................................................... 23-2
LOS Criteria ...... .... ........ .. .. .... ................. .... ....... ............ .... ............ ........ ............... 23-2
Required Input Data ........................................................................................... 23-4
Scope of the Methodology ... ......................................... ..................................... 23-4
Limitations of the Methodology ....................................................................... 23-5
2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 23-7

Overview .................. ........................ ............. .... .. ...... ............ ........................ ...... 23-7
Exclusive Off-Street Pedestrian facilities ................... ............ ......................... 23-9
Shared-Use Paths ........................................... ................................................... 23-13
Off-Street Bicycle Facilities .............................................................................. 23-15
3. APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 23-24

Default Values ......... ............. ................ ..................... ............ ............ ............... . 23-24
Analysis Boundaries ..... ............ ........ ............ .... ................................................ 23-24
Types of Analysis ................................. ............................................................ 23-25
Special Cases .. ....... ..... ............ ............. ..... ....... ........ .... ............ ............ ....... ....... 23-25
Usc of Alternative Tools .................................................................................. 23-27
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS....................................................................................... 23-28

Example Problem 1: Pedestrian LOS on Shared-Usc and Exclusive
Paths ....................................................... ............. ........................ ................ 23-28
Example P roblem 2: Bicycle LOS on a Shared-Use Path ............. ................ 23-30
5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 23-34
Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-i Contents

~mber2010
Highway Capacity M a nua/2010
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 23-1 Average Flow LOS Criteria for Walkways ..... .......................... ........ 23-3
Exhibit 23-2 Platoon-Adjusted LOS Criteria for Walkways ................................. 23-3
Exhibit 23-3 LOS Criteria for Stairways ....... ................ ........................................... 23-3
Exhibit 23-4 Pedestrian LOS Criteria for Shared-Use Paths ........................ ......... 23-4
Exhibit 23-5 LOS Criteria for Bicycles on Shared-Use and Exclusive Paths ...... 23-4
Exhibit 23-6 Required Input Data by Exclusive Pedestrian and Bicycle
Facility Type ........................................................................................................ 23-4
Exhibit 23-7 Flowchart for Analysis of Exclusive Off-Street Pedestrian
Facilities ................... ................................................ .... .... .... ................................ 23-7
Exhibit 23-8 Flowchart for Analysis of Pedestrian LOS on Shared Off-Street
Facili ties ............................ ................. ............... ............ .................................. ..... 23-8
Exhibit 23-9 Flowchart for Analysis of Bicycle LOS on Off-Street Facilities ...... 23-8
Exhibit 23-10 Width Adjustments for Fixed Obstacles ......................................... 23-9
Exhibit23-11 Typical Fixed-Object Effective Widths ... .................................. ..... 23-10
Exhibit 23-12 Schematic of Active Passing Events ........ ....... .......................... ..... 23-17
Exhibit 23-13 Schematic of Meeting Events ............................... ........................... 23-18
Exhibit 23-14 Effective Lanes by Path Width ....................................................... 23-19
Exhibit 23-15 Required Bicycle Passing Distance ............ .................................... 23-19
Exhibit 23-1 6 Frequency of Blocking of Two Lanes .................. .. ........................ 23-21
Exhibit 23-17 Default Va lues for Exclusive Off-Street Bicycle Facilities .......... 23-24
Exhibit 23-18 Pedestrian Circulation Space in a Pedestrian Plaza .................... 23-26
Exhibit 23-19 Effect of Vertical Climb on Horizontal Distance Walked ........... 23-27
Exhibit 23-20 List of Example Problems .. ........................... .... .............................. 23-28
Contents Page 23-ii Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/2010
1. INTRODUCTION
OVERVIEW
Off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities are facilities that (n) are used only V0LU~11E 3: INTfRRUPTCD H.OW
16. Urb~n Str~t FacilkrPS
by nonmotorized modes and (b) arc not considered part of an urban street or \7. Urban Slr<..'CI· 5-.!{)r11t'nts
transit facility. The second part of this definition excludes facilities located 1S. S!gnnli?P.d l ntersrrtions
19. lWSC Inh'f<.>rx!io,J!:>
directly along an urban street (e.g., bicycle lanes or sidewalks). ln general, off- 20. AWSC Interst~ction~
street facilities include those for which the characteristics of motor vehicle traffic 21. Roundabout.;
22. tntprchano•• Ramr 1erminals
do not play a strong role in determining the quality of service from the 23. Off-Street Pedestrian and
perspective of bicyclists and pedestrians. Thus, a shared-use path only 10ft from Bicycle Facilities
a roadway but separated by a sound barrier may be considered an off-street Pedestrian capacity concepts are the
facility, whereas a sidepath with a 10-ft planted buffer separating it from the same across facility types (i.e.,
exclusive off-street facilities, on-street
roadway would generally be considered an on-street facility. facilities, and transit facilities).
However, LOS thresholds for transit
In general, facilities located within approximately 35ft of an urban street are facilities allow higher levels of
not considered off-street, although the precise definition of "off-street" varies by crowding for a given LOS than do the
thresholds for nontransit facilities.
facility as described earlier. These types of pedestrian and bicycle facilities arc
Off-street facilities are those
covered in Chapter 16, Urban Street Facilities, and Chapter 17, Urban Street generally located more than 3S ft
Segments. The definition also excludes crosswalks and queuing areas; these arc from a roadway, although the exact
distance may vary on the basis of the
addressed in each of the chapters on intersections (Chapters 18-21 ). Pedestrian local context
components of transit facilities are addressed in the Transit Capacity and Quality of
Service Manual (1). The 35-ft threshold is based on studies of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities (2-4) in which it was found that motor vehicle traffic influenced
pedestrian and bicycle quality of service on facilities located within at least this
distance of the roadway.
Chapter 23, Off-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities, provides capacity
and level-of-service (LOS) estimation procedures for the types of facilities shown
below. Examples of each of the foll owing facility types can be found in Chapter
3, Modal Characteristics:
• Walkways: paved paths, ramps, and plazas that are generally located
more than 35 ft from an urban street as well as streets reserved for
pedestrian traffic on a full- or part-time basis;
• Stairways: staircases that are part of a longer pedestrian facility;
• Shared-usc paths: paths physically separated from highway traffic for the
use of pedestrians, bicyclists, runners, inline skaters, and other users of
nonmotorized modes; and
• Exclusive off-street bicycle paths: paths physically separated from
highway traffic for the exclusive use of bicycles.
Chapter 23/0tf-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-1 Introduction

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 2010
ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES
The analysis of off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities occurs at the
segment level. A segment ends and a new segment begins when any of the
following occur:
• 111ere is a street crossing;
• The width of the facility changes significantly;
• There is an intersection with another exclusive pedestrian or bicycle
facility, where user volumes change significantly or cross flows are
created; or
• The type of facility changes (e.g., where a walkway becomes a stairway).
LOS CRITERIA
The LOS thresholds defined for each of the off-street pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are presented in this section. Three types of service measures arc
defined:
• For pedestrians on exclusive pedestrian facilities, pedestrinll space (square
feet per pedestrian);
• For pedestrians on fa(_ilities shared by pedestrians and bicycles, the
number of bicycle meeting and passing events per hour; and
• For bicycles on both shared-use and exclusive paths, a bicycle LOS score
incorporating meetings per minute, active passings per minute, presence
of a centerline, path width, and delayed passings.
Exhibit 23-1 through Exhibit 23-5 provide five LOS tables: four for pedestrian
facilities and one for bicycle facilities. /\s described in Chapter 4, Traffic Flow
and Capacity Concepts, pedestrian flow rates and speeds arc directly related to
the average space occupied by a pedestrian. These values are given for reference
in the space-based LOS tables along with the corresponding range of volume-to-
capacity (v/c) ratios; however, the actual LOS in those tables are based on space
per pedestrian.
LOS does not reflect whether i!l The LOS thresholds are based on user perception research where available
facility complies with the AOA
or other standards. and in other cases on expert judgment. LOS does not reflect whether a facility
complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (/\DA) or other standards.
Walkways
The walkway LOS tables apply to paved pedestrian paths, pedestrian zones
(exclusive pedestrian streets), walkways and ramps with up to a 5% grade, and
pedestrian walking zones through plaza areas. Exhibit 23-1 applies when
pedestrian flow along the facility is random. Exhibit 23-2 applies when platoons
of pedestrians form along the facility, for example, when a signalized crosswalk
is located at one end of the portion of the facility being anaJy7.cd.
Cross flows occu r at the intersection of two approximately perpendicular
pedestrian streams (e.g., where two wa lkways intersect or at a building
entrance). Because of the increased number of conflicts that occur between
pedestrians, walkway capacity is lower in a cross-flow situation than along other
Introduction Page 23-2 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
parts of the walkway. ln cross-flow locations, the LOS E-F threshold is 13 ft2/p,
as indicated in the notes for Exhibit 23-1 and Exhibit 23-2.
Average B~lated f!Jeasu~~ Exhibit 23-1

Space Flow Rate Average Average Flow LOS Criteria for
_!:OS_ ( ttl/_&_ (p/min/~ Speed (ft/~/cRatiob Comments Walkways
Ability to move in desired path, no
A >60 ~5 >4.25 ~0.21
need to alter movements
Occasional need to adjust path to
B >40-60 >5-7 >4.174.25 >0.21-0.31
avoid conflicts
Frequent need to adjust path to
c >2440 >7-10 >4.00-4.17 >0.31-0.44
avoid conflicts
Speed and ability to pass slower
D >15-24 >lD-15 >3.7H.OO >0.44-0.65
pedestrians restricted
Speed restricted, very limited
E >8-15< > 15-23 >2.5Q-3.75 >0.65-1.00
ability to pass slower pedestrians
Speeds severely restricted,
F ~8'-' Variable ~ 2.50 Variable
frequent contact with other users
Notes: Exhibit 23· 1 does not apply to walkways with steep grades (>5%). See the Special cases section for
further discuSSion.
• Pedestrians per minute per foot of walkway width.
b vic ratiO = flow rate/23. LOS is based on average space per pedestrian.
r In cross-flow situations, the LOS E-f threshold is 13 ff-/p.
Related Exhibit 23-2

Average Measure Platoon -Adjusted LOS
Space Flow Rate" Criteria for Walkways
_h0S_ (tt:.00 ~/min/ft)b Comments
A >530 ~0.5 Ability to move in desired path, no need to alter movements
B >9D-530 >0.5-3 Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts
c >4D-90 >3-6 Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts
D >2340 >6-11 Speed and ability to pass slower pedestrians restricted
Speed restricted, very limited ability to pass slower
E >11-23< >11-18
pedestrians
F ~11< >18 S eds severe! restricted fr uent contact with other users
Notes: • Rates in the table represent average flow rates over a S·mln period. Flow rate is directly related to space;
however, LOS is based on average space per pedestrian.
b Pedestrians per minute per foot of walkway width.
' In cross-flow situations, the LOS E-F threshold is 13 ft?-Jp.
Stairways
Exhibit 23-3 provides the LOS criteria for stairways.
Average Related Measuru Exhibit 23-3

Space Row Rate LOS Criteria for Stairways
~O~(ttlh) .JJUmin/ftY __v/t;Ratio~ Comments
A >20 ss ~ 0.33 No need to alter movements
B > 17- 20 >S-6 >0.33-0.41 Occasional need to adjust path to avoid conflicts
c >12-17 >6-8 > 0.41-0.53 Frequent need to adjust path to avoid conflicts
D >8-12 >8- 11 >0.53-0.73 Limited ability to pass slower pedestrians
E > 5-8 >11- 15 >0.73-1.00 Very limited ability to pass slower pedestrians
Speeds severely restricted, frequent contact with
F ~5 Variable Variable
other users
Notes: • Pedestrians per minute per foot of walkway width.
11
=
v/c ratio flow rate/15. LOS is based on average space per pedestrian.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23·3 Introduction

December 2010
Pedestrians on Shared-Use Paths

Exhibit 23-4 shows LOS criteria for paths shared between pedestrians and
bicycles.
Exhibit 23-4 Weighted Related Measure

Pedestrian LOS Criteria for Event Bicycle Service Flow Rate
Shared-Use Paths LOS Rate/h _per Direction (bicycles/E)_ c..,...o_m
_ m_e_n_ts_,..-,-----.,------,------ -
A ~38 ~28 Optimum conditions, conflicts with bicycles rare
B >38-60 > 28-44 Good conditions, few conflicts with bicycles
c >6~103 >44-75 Difficult to walk two abreast
D >103- 144 > 75-105 Frequent conflicts with cyclists
E >144- 180 > 105-131 Conflicts with cydists frequent and disruptive
F > 180 >131 Significant user conflicts diminished experience
Notes: An "event" is a bicycle meeting or passing a pedestrian.
Bicycle service volumes are shown for reference and are based on a 50/50 directional split of bicycles; LOS
is based on number of events per hour and applies to any directional split.
Exclusive and Shared Bicycle Facilities

Exhibit 23-5 provides LOS criteria for bicyclists on both shared-use and
exclusive off-street paths.
Exhibit 23-5 ~L~O~S~_~B~icycleLOSSoo~re~.-~c=o~m~m ~e~n~ts=-~----

LOS Criteria for Bicycles on A >4.0 Optimum conditions, ample ability to absorb more riders
Shared-Use and Exclusive B >3.5-4.0 Good conditions, some ability to absorb more riders
Paths C >3.Q-3.5 Meets current demand, marginal ability to absorb more riders
D >2.5-3.0 Many conflicts, some reduction in bicycle travel speed
E >2.Q-2.5 Very crowded, with significantly reduced bicycle travel speed
F ~2.0 Si nificant user conflicts and diminished ex rience
REQUIRED INPUT DATA

The input data required to perform an analysis differ depending on the type
of facility and user being analyzed. Exhibit 23-6 shows the required input data
for each of the facility types addressed in this chapter.
Exhibit 23-6 Pedestrian/Bicycle Fac::.:il=-=ity'"----=-=

Reql!ired
::::.: Inpu~ D
::..:a=-=t a=------ - - SymboL
Required Input Data by Effective walkway width Ew
Exclusive Pedestrian and Walkways, stairways Peak 15-min ped~strian volume VJ5_' -
Bicycle Fadlity Type Directional hourly bicycle volumes Qb
Pedestrians on shared-use paths Mean pedestrian speed Sp
Mean bicycle speed sb
Directional hourly path volumes Qr
Path mode split by user group Pi
Paltl peak hour factor PHF
Mean and standard deviation of speed by user J.l;, rTj
Bicycles on shared-use and exclusive
group
paltls
Paltl width
Presence of centerline on path
Proportion of users blocking two lanes by user
group (ltlree- and four-lane paths only)
SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

Methodologies are described for evaluating the LOS of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities that are separate from, and unaffected by, motor vehicle traffic.
Other chapters in Volumes 2 and 3 provide methodologies for determining
pedestrian and bicycle LOS on roadway system elements with motor vehicle
traffic. The procedures may be applied in an approximate manner to pedestrian

December 2010
zones (exclusive pedestrian streets), plazas, and ramps with grades exceeding
5%, as described later in the Special Cases section.
The analysis methodologies are based solely on facility characteristics and do
not consider external factors that may also affect quality of service, such as
weather, landscaping, adjacent land uses, and lighting conditions, which may
also affect users' perceptions of a facility.
Much of the material in this chapter is the result of research sponsored by the
Federal Highway Administra6on (5-7). Both commuter and recreational
bicycl ists were included in the off-street bicycle path research (7).
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY

Jn this chapter each of the facilities is treated from the point of view of
pedestrians or bicyclists. Procedures for assessing the impact of pedestrians and
bicyclists on other facility users (e.g., inline skaters) are not considered.
Additional information on other users may be found elsewhere (B). The
methodology does not address LOS for pedestrians with disabilities, including
vision or n1obility impairments. The reader is encouraged to consult material
pubUshed by the United States Access Board to ensure compliance with the
ADA.
The analysis methodologies presented here do not consider the continuity of The methodology does not
address the impact of roadway
walkways, bikeways, and shared-use pa ths in determining the LOS. Facilities crossings on the LOS of off-
that are interrupted with frequent roadway crossings will provide lower street paths.
capacities and travel speeds than facilities with long, uninterrupted stretches. In
addition, roadway crossings, especially crossings of high-volume or high-speed
facilities, may negatively affect the pedestrian and bicycle environment and user
perceptions of quality of service. I lowever, the methodologies described here
only consider discrete, uninterrupted facilities and do not assess the impact of
intersections with other facilities.
Pedestrian Facilities
The capacity of pedestrian facilities is based on research conducted on
constrained facil ities (e.g., bridges and underground passageways), where there
is no opportunity for pedestrians to wa lk outside the designated area. Off-street
pedestrian facilities, in contrast, typically have no barriers keeping pedestrians to
the designated path. As a result, these facilities reach effective failure (i.e., Where the opportunity exists,
pedestrian spillover) at densities less than their capacity. for this reason, in pedestrians wtll spill over the edges
of a walkway at densities below
combination with considerations of general pedestrian comfort, off-street capacity.
walkways arc desirably designed to achieve LOS C or better, based on pedestrian
space, rather than for capacity conditions. The methodologies arc generally
appropriate regardless of the type of surface used for the pedestrian facility.
Exclusive Bicycle Facilities

The methodology for exclusive bicycle facilities is based on research The exdusive bicyde facility
methodology may not be applicable
conducted only o n paved surfaces and may not be applicable to soft surfaces to facilities with soft surfaces.
such as gravel, di rt, or wood chips.
Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-5 Introduction

December 2010
Shared-Use Paths
The pedestrian shared-vse- The methodology for shared-use paths does not account for the effect on
path methodology does not
account for the effects of pedestrian LOS of path width or the impact of meeting and passing events. No
nonbicyc/ist users of the path credible data were found on fixed objects and their effects on users of these types
on pedestrian LOS.
of facilities. The methodology also does not account for the effect of nonbicyclist
users of the path (e.g., skateboarders, inline skaters) on pedestrians. However, it
is expected that pedestrians will often encounter these users on shared-use paths
and that because of their higher speeds, these users can have a negative effect on
pedestrian LOS.
The methodology for bicycle LOS on shared-use paths incorporates the
effects of five user groups: bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, inline skaters, and
child bicyclists. However, several path user groups that may be a part of the mix
on some trails are not incorporated, including push scooter users, wheelchair
users, equestrians, cross-country skiers, and users of electric vehicles. The
methodology is based on research conducted only on paved surfaces and may
not be applicable to soft surfaces such as gravel, dirt, or wood chips. The
methodology is not applicable for paths wider than 20ft. This methodology was
developed from data collected on two-way paths but may be applied to one-way
paths by setting opposing volumes equal to zero.
Some shared-use paths are signed or striped, or both, to segregate pedestrian
and bicycle traffic. The research that developed the shared-use-path
methodology did not address those kinds of paths; guidance on such paths may
be found in the Special Cases section.

December 2010
2. METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
Off-street pedestrian and bicycle facilities serve only nonmotori zed traffic Sidewalks and bicycle faalities along
urban streets are addressed in
and are separated from motor vehicle traffic to the exten t that such traffic does Chapter 17, Urban Street Segments.
not affect their quality of service. Thus, although sidewalks primarily serve only Bicycle facilities on mulblane and
pedestrians, they are not addressed in this chapter- the quality of service two-lane highways are addressed in
Chapters 14 and 15, respectively.
afforded to pedestrians on sidewalks depends in part on the presence and
characteristics of the adjacent motor vehicle traffic.
Procedures for estimating LOS are separated into three main categories:
exclusive pedestriun facilities, exclusive bicycle facilities, and shared pedestrian
and bicycle facilities. Separate methodologies arc provided to assess pedestrian
and bicycle I .OS on shared fa cilities.
There are three general categories of exclusive pedestrian facilities:
walkways, cross-flow areas, and stairways. The LOS thresholds for each category
are different, but all are based on the concept of space per pedestrian, which is a
measure of pedestrian comfort and mobility. Exhibit 23-7 illustrates the steps
taken to determine the LOS of exclusive off-street pedestrian facilities.
I Step 1: Determine the effective walkway width I Exhibit 23-7

Flowchart for Analysis of Exclusive
Off-Street Pedestrian Facilities
l
Step 2: Calculate the pedestrian flow rate
I Step 3: Calculate the average pedestrian space I

l
Step 4: Determine LOS
Exhibit 23-1 (walkways without platooning)
Exhibit 23-2 (walkways with platooning)
Exhibit 23-3 (stairways)
I Step 5:
l
Calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio I
LOS for pedestrians on shared off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities is
based on the number of events during which a pedestriun either meets an
oncoming bicyclist or is passed by a bicyclist. As the number of events increases,
the pedestrian LOS decreases because of reduced comfort. Exhibit 23-8 shows the
steps taken to detennine shared-facility LOS.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-7 Methodology

December 2010
Exhibit 23-8
Step 1: Gather input data
Flowchart for Analysis of
Pedestrian LOS on Shared
Hourly pedestrian and bicycle demands by direction
Off-Street Facilities Bicycle and pedestrian speeds
l
r Step 2: Calculate the number of bicycle passing and meeting events I
l
Exhibit 23-4
Bicycle LOS on exclusive and shared-use off-stn:.-et bicycle facilities is based

on u st~r perceptions of how the LOS of shared-use paths changes according to
several different factors. These factors are combined in to a single bicycle LOS
score. LOS thresholds relate to a specific range of LOS score values. Exhibit 23-9
shows the steps taken to determine the LOS of off-street bicycle facilities.
Exhibit 23·9
Step 1: Gather input data
Flowchart for Analysis of
Bicycle LOS on Off-Street
For each modal user (pedestrians, bicyclists_ inline skaters_ runners_ and child bicyclists).·
Facilities Hourly demands by direction, speeds, and mode split
For the facility:
Path width, centerline presence
l
I Step 2: calculate active passings per minute 1
l
I Step 3: calculate meetings per minute I
l
I Step 4: Determine the number of lanes I
1 step
l
s: calculate the probability of delayed passing 1
l
I Step 6: calculate delayed passings per minute l
l
Exhibit 23-5
!
I Step 8: Adjust LOS for low-volume paths I
Methodology Page 23-8 Chapter 2310ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
EXCLUSIVE OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Step 1: Determine Effective Walkway Width
Walkways and Cross-Flow Areas

Effective walkway width is the portion of a walkway that can be used
effectively by pedestrians. Various types of obstructions and linear features,
discussed below, reduce the walkway area that can be effectively used by
pedestrians. The effective walkway width a t a given point along the walkway is
computed as follows:
Equation 23- 1
where
We e ffective walkway width (ft),
WT total walkway width at a given point along walkway (ft), and
W0 sum of fixed -object effective widths and linear-feature shy distances at
a given point along walkway (ft).
Exhibit23-10 illustrates a portion of a sidewalk or walkway. The general Shy distance is a buffe r that
pedestrians leave between
concepts shown arc applicable both to sidewalks along urban streets and to themselves and linear objects along a
exclusive off-street paths not located adjacent to a street. Linear features such as walkway, such as curbs and building
faces.
the street curb, the low wall, and the building face each havt;~ associated shy
d istances. The shy distance is the buffer that pedestrians give themselves to avoid
accidentally stepping off the curb, b rushing against a building face, or getting too
close to other pedestrians standing under awnings or wind ow shopping. Fixed
objects, such as the tree, have effective widths associatt~d with them. The JLt:ed-
object effective width includes the object's physical width, any functionally
unusable space (e.g., the space between a parking meter and the curb or the
space in front of a bench occupied by people's legs and belongings), and the
buffe r given the object by pedestrians.
Exhibit 23-10
Width Adjustments for Fixed
Obstacles
The concept of effective width applies

to both on-street and off-street
fadlities. Because of the proximity of
the street in Exhibit 23·10, the
sidewalk here would be considered
an on-street pedestrian facility.
The street is shown so that all factors

that am influence the effective width
Building face with window display of walkways can be depicted in one
place.
= Shy distance = Fixed -object effective width
Exhibit 23-10 also shows that the effective width of a fixed object extends
over an effective length that is considerably longer than the object's physical
leng th. The effective length represents the portion of the walkway that is
functionally unusable because pedestrians need to move to one side ahead of
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23·9 Methodology

December 2010
time to get around a fixed object. The effective length of a fixed object is assumed
to be five times the object's effective width.
Typically, a walkway operational analysis evaluates the portion of the
walkway with the narrowest effective width, since this section forms the
constraint on pedestrian flow. A design analysis identifies the minimum effective
width that must be maintained along the length of the walkway to avoid
pedestrian queuing or spillover.
Exhibit 23-11 gives the effective wid ths of a variety of typical fixed objects
found along on- and off-street pedestrian facilities. The values in Exhibit 23-11
can be used when specific walkway configurations arc not available.
Exhibit 23-11 Fixed Object - :-=----,,-----=E::..:JJ:.ect

:::=iv.e Width lft)
Typical Fixed-Object Street Furniture
Effective Widths Lightpole 2.5-3.5
Traffic signal poles and boxes 3.0-4.0
Fire alarm boxes 2.5-3.5
Fire hydrants 2.5-3.0
Traffic signs 2.(}-2.5
Parking meters 2.0
Mail boxes (1.7 ft x 1.7 ft) 3.2- 3.7
Telephone booths (2.7 ft x 2.7 ft) 4.0
Trash cans (1.8 ft diameter) 3.0
Benches 5.0
Bus shelters Con sidewalk) -=-=--=-----=-~· 6.(}-7.9__ __
·---,----=-
P.::U:::.
bl:.:.:ic:...U
:::.:ndergroun:::.d~A,c,ces
=s---=-..,--.,._,
Subway stairs 5.5-7.0
Subway ventilation gratings (raised) 6.0+
Transformer vault ventilation gratings (rais:.-:ed
=<-
) _ _ _ _.6::.;·c::c
0..:..
+ _ __
Landscaping
Trees 3.0-4.0
See Exhibit 23-10 for shy Planter boxes 5.0
distances associated with :----:---:-:--- - -- _Commercial Uses
curbs and building faces. Newsstands 4.(}-13.0
Vending stands Variable
Advertising and store displays Variable
Sidewalk caf_e~ (two rows_of tables) 7.0
--------=B~u:.:i:.:::
lding Prott:tJ:::.SI,.""o!!.ns~--
Columns 2.5-3.0
Stoops 2.G-6.0
Cellar doors S.G-7.0
Standpipe connections 1.0
Awning poles 2.5
Truck docks (trucks protruding) Variable
Garage entrance/exit Variable
Driveways Variable
SOUrce: Pushkarev and Zupan (9).
Stairways
Pedestrians tend to walk in A stairway's capacity is largely affected by its wid th. Unlike walking on a
lines or lanes on smirways; level surface, traversing stairs tends to make people walk in lines or lanes. The
thus, meaningful increases in
capacity are related to the w idth of a stairway determines both the number of distinct lines that can
number ofpedestrian lanes traverse the stair and the side-to-side spacing between them, affecting both the
available.
abil ity of faster pedestrizms to pass slower-moving pedestrians and the level of
interference between adjacent lines of people. The consequence is that
meaningful increases in capacity are not linearly proportional to the width but
occur in increments of about 30 in. (1).
Methodology Page 23-10 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
On stairways (in contrast to walkways), a minor pedestrian flow in the Small reverse nows on stairways
should be assumed to use one
opposing direction can result in reduced capacity disproportionate to the pedestrian lane (30 ln.) of width.
magnitude of the reverse flow. As a result, a small reverse flow should be
assumed to occupy one pedestrian lane or 30 in. of the stair's width. For a
stairway with an effective width of 60 in. (5 ft), a small reverse flow could
consume half its capacity (1). The allowance for small reverse flows, when used,
is included as part of the W0 term in Equation 23-1.
Step 2: Calculate Pedestrian Flow Rate
Walkways and Cross-Flow Areas

Hourly pedestrian demands is used as an input to the analysis. Consistent
with the general analysis procedures used throughout the IICM, hourly demand
is usually converted into peak 15-min flows, so that LOS is based on the busiest
15 consecutive minutes during an hour:
VIr Equation 23-2
v - ----''---
15 - 4xPHF
where
v 15 pedestrian flow rate during peak 15 min (p/h),
vh pedestrian demand during analysis hour (p/h), and
PHF peak hour factor.
However, if peak-15-min pedestrian volumes are available, the highest IS-
min volume can be used directly without the application of a peak hour factor.
Next, the peak 15-min flow is converted into a unit flow rate (pedestrians per
minute per foot of effective path width):
VIS
v = - --.!..:::- Equation 23-3
p lSxWc
where Vp is pedestrian flow per unit width (p/ft/min) and all other variables are
as previously defined.
Stairways
Because pedestrians use more energy to ascend stairs than to descend them, Critical pedestrian nows on stairs
occur in the up direction.
lower flow rates typically occur in the ascending direction. For this reason, when
stairs serve both directions simultaneously or when the same stairway will be
used primarily in the up d irection during some time periods and primarily in the
down direction during other time periods, the upward flow rate should be used
for analysis and design (1). The calculation of pedestrian fk>w rate for stairways
is otherwise the same as that described for walkways and cross-flow areas.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fadlities Page 23-11 Methodology

De£ember 2010
Step 3: Calculate Ave rage Pedestrian Space

1 The service measure for walkways is pedestrian space, the inverse of density.
Space = Density
Pedestrian space can be directly observed in the fidd by measuring a sample
area of the facility and determining the maximum number of pedestrians at a
given time in that area. The pedestrian unit flow rate is related to pedestrian
space and speed:
Equation 23-4
where
A 1, pedestrian space (ft2/p),
SP pedestrian speed (ft/min), and
v1, pedestrian flow per unit width (p/ft/min).
Walkways with Random Pedestrian Flow

Where pedestrian flow on the path is not influenced by platooning (see next
subsection), Exhibit 23-1 should be used to determine pedestrian LOS.
Ramps with grades of 5% or Research (9-11) has shown that pedestrian speeds on ramps with grades up
less can be treated as
walkways for the purpose of to 5% are not significantly different from speeds on level walkways but that
determining LOS. speeds decrease at higher grades. Therefore, the walkway LOS values are also
applicable to ramps with grades of 5% or less. Ramps with steeper grades are
discussed later in this chapter in the Special Cases section. The walkway LOS
values can also be adapted to pedestrian plazas and pedestrian zones (exclusive
pedestrian streets), as discussed in the Special Cases section.
Walkways with Platoon Flow

Platooning on walkways. It is important for the analyst to determine whether platooning alters the
underlying assumptions of random flow in the LOS calculation. Platoons can
arise, for example, if entry to a walkway segment is controlled by a traffic signal
at a street crossing or if pedestrians arrive at intervals on transit vehicles.
Where platooning occurs, the pedestrian flow is concentrated over short time
periods rather than being distributed evenly throughout the peak 15-min
analysis period. The available space for the typical pedestrian under these
circumstances is much more constrained than the average space available with
random arrival would indicate. There is no strict definition for what constitutes
platooning rather than random flow; observations of loca l conditions and
engineering judgment should be used to determine the most relevant design
criteria (i.e., platoons versus random flow).
If platooning occurs, Exhibit 23-2 should be used to determine LOS. Research
(9) indicates that impeded flow starts at 530 ft2/p, which is equivalent to a flow
rate of 0.5 p/min/ft. This value is used as the LOS A-B th reshold . The same
research shows that jammed flow in platoons starts at 11 ft2/p, which is
equivalent to 18 p/min/ ft. This value is used as the LOS E-F threshold.

December 2010
Cross-Flow Areas
A cross flow is a pedestrian flow that is approximately perpendicular to and Cross-flow LOS thresholds are
identical to those for walkways,
crosses another pedestrian stream, for example, at the intersecti(m of two except for the LOS E-F threshold.
walkways or at a building entrance. In general, the Jesser of the two flows is
referred to as the cross-flow condition. The same procedure used to estimate
walkway space is used to analyze pedestrian facilities with cross flows. As
shown in the footnotes to Exhibit 23-1 and Exhibit 23-2, the LOSE threshold (i.e.,
capacity) in cross-flow situations occurs at a lower density than that for
wa lkways without cross flows (12).
Stai!Ways
Research (13) has developed I .OS thresholds based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers stairway standards, which provide the space and flow
values given in Exhibit 23-3. As with walkways, s tairway LOS is described by the
service measu re of pedestrian space, expressed as square feet per pedestrian.
Step 5: Calculate Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

The volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio can be computed by using the following
values of capacity for various exclusive pedestrian facilities:
• Walkways with random flow: 23 p/min/ft.,
• Walkways with platoon flow (average over 5 min): 18 p/min/ft,
• Cross-flow areas: 17 p/min/ft (sum of both flows), and
• Stairways (up direction): 15 p/min/ft in the ascending direction.
SHARED-USE PATHS
Shared-use pedestrian- bicycle paths typically are open to users of
nonmotorized modes such as bicyclists, skateboarders, and wheelchair users.
Shared-use paths are often constructed to serve areas without city streets and to
provide recreational opportunities for the public. These paths are also common
on uni versity campuses, where motor vehicle traffic and parking arc often
restricted. In the United States, there arc few paths exclusively for pedestrians -
most off-street paths are for shared use.
Bicycles- because of their markedly higher speeds - have a negative effect
on pedestrian capacity and LOS on shared-use paths. However, it is difficult to
establish a bicycle- pedestrian equivalent because the relationsh ip between the
two differs depending on their respective flows and directional splits, among
other factors. This section covers pedestrian LOS on shared-use paths. Bicyclists
have a different perspective, as discussed in the following section.
Step 1: Gather Input Data

The following input data arc required for the analysis:
• Hourly pedestrian and bicycle demands by direction, and
• Avcrage pedestrian and bicycle speeds.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fadlities Page 23-13 Methodology

December 2010
Step 2: Calculate Number of Bicycle Passing and Meeting Events

LOS is based on the overtaking LOS for shared-use paths is based on hindrance. Research (14} has
ofpedestrians by bicydists.
Pedestrian-to-pedestrian established LOS thresholds for pedestrians based on the frequency of passing (in
interaction is typically the same direction) and of meeting (in the opposite direction) other users.
negligible.
Because pedestrians seldom overtake other pedestrians, pedestrian LOS on a
shared-use path depends on the frequency with which the average pedestrian is
met and overtaken by bicyclists (14). However, the analyst should observe
pedestrian behavior in the field before assuming that pedestrian-to-pedestrian
interaction is negligible. The shared-use-path methodology does not account for
events w ith users other than bicyclists (e.g., inline skaters).
The average number of passing and meeting events per hour is calculated by
Equation 23-5 and Equation 23-6. These equations do not account for the range of
bicycle speeds encountered in practicei however, because of the limited degree of
overlap between the speed distributions of bicyclists and pedestrians, the
resulting difference is practically insignificant.
For one-way paths, there arc no meeting events, so only Fp, the number of
passing events, needs to be calculated. Paths 15 ft or more in width may
e ffectively operate as two adjacent one-way facilities, in which case F"' may be set
to zero.
Equation 23-5 F
"
=ib.._(I-
PHF
sp) Sb
Equation 23-6 f?
"'
= Q""
PHF
(1+ sS Jp
where
FP number of passing events (events/h),
F,. number of meeting events (events/h),
Q,1, bicycle demand in sa me direction (bicycles/h),
Qob bicycle demand in opposing direction (bicycles/h),
PHF peak hour factor,
51, mean pedestrian speed on path {mi/h), and
Sb mean bicycle speed on path (mi/h).
Meeting events create less Meeting events allow direct visual contact, so opposing-direction bicycles
hindrance than overtaking
events. tend to cause less hindrance to pedestrians. To account for the reduced
hindrance, a factor of 0.5 is applied to the meeting events on the basis of
theoretical considerations (7 4). Where sufficient data are available on the relative
effects of meetings and passings on hindrance, this fa ctor can be calibrated to
local conditions. Because the number of events calculated in the previous step
was based on hourly demand, a peak hour factor must be applied to convert
them to the equivalent demand based on peak 15-min conditions. The total
number of events is

December 2010
F = (FP+0.5 F"' ) Equation 23-7
where F is the total events on the path in events per hour and the other variables
are as defined previously.

Exhibit 23-4 is used lo determine shared-use-path pedestrian LOS based on
the total events per hour calculated in Step 2. UnJikc the case for exclusive
pedestrian facilities, the LOS E-F threshold does not reflect the capacity of a
shared-use path but rather a point at which the number of bicycle meeting and
passing events results in a severely diminished experience for the pedestrians
sharing the path.
OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES

On shared-use paths, the presence of other bicyclists and other path users The uninterrupted-flow bicyde facility
analysis is based on several factors
can be detrimental to bicyclists by increasing bicycle delay, decreasing bicycle that affect user perception.
capacity, and reducing bicyclists' freedom of movement. Research (7) correlating
user perceptions of comfort and enjoyment of path facilities with an objective
measure of path and user characteristics serves as the basis for the LOS
thresholds and methodology described in this section. The fo!Jowing key criteria
are considered through this methodology:
• The ability of a bicyclist to maintain an optimum speed,
• The number of times that bicyclists meet or pass other path users, and
• The bicyclist's freedom to maneuver.
The results of a perception survey were used to fit a linear regression model
in which the survey results served as the dependent variable. The methodology
incorporates the effects of five path modes that may affect bicycle LOS: other
bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, in line skaters, and child bicyclists. Five
variables - meetings per minute, active passings per minute, path width,
presence of a centerline, and delayed passings - are used in the m odel. Jn the
On exdusive off-street bicyde
special case of an exclusive off-street bicycle facility, the volume for all facilities the number ofpassings and
nonbicycle modes is assumed to be zero, and the number of passings and meetings is determined solely by the
bicyde volume.
meetings is determined solely by the volume of bicycles.
The following sections describe the ste ps to be taken in calculating bicycle
LOS for an off-street facility.

The methodology addresses five types of path users, or mode groups:
bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, inline skaters, and child bicyclists. The following
input data are required for each mode group:
• Hourly demand by direction in modal users per hour,
• Average mode group speed in miles per hour, and
• Proportion of all path users represented by a particular mode group (i.e.,
mode split).
Tn addition, the follm-ving data are required for the facility:

December 2010
• Path width in feet, and

• Presence of a centerline stripe (yes or no).
With the hourly directional demand for the path and the path mode split, the
hourly directional flow rate on the path is calculated for each of the five modes:
Qr xpi
Equation 23-8
q; = PHF
where
q, hourly d irectional path flow rate for user group i (modal users/h),
Q1' total hourly directional path demand (modal users/h),
p; path mode split for user group i, and
PHF = peak hour fa ctor.
Step 2: Calculate Active Passings per Minute

Active passings are defined as the number of other path users traveling in
the same direction as an average bicyclist (i.e., a bicyclist traveling at the average
speed of all bicycles), who are passed by that bicyclist. The average bicyclist is
assumed to move at a constant speed U. The value of U should be set to the
average speed of bicyclists on the facility in question; where local data are not
available, the default average bicyclist speed of 12.8 mi/h may be used. The
methodology for determining active passings incorporates separately the effects
of each of the five mode groups described in Step 1. The speeds of path users of
each mode group are assumed to be normally distributed with a mean fl; and
standard deviation a;2, where i represents mode.
The average bicyclist passes only those users who (a) arc present on the path
segment when the average bicyclist enters and (b) exit the segment after the
average bicyclist d oes. Thus, for a given modal user in the path when the average
bicyclist enters, the probability of being passed is expressed by
X
Equation 23-9 P(v;)= Pfv; < U(l- L)]
where
P(v,) probability of passing user of mode i,
U speed of average bicyclist (mi/h),
v, speed of path user of mode i (mi/h),
L length of path segment (mi), and
x = distance from average bicyclist to user (mi).
Exhibit 23-12 provides a schematic of active passing cvenlc;.

December 2010
L Exhibit 23-12
Schematic of Active Passing
X
lb
dx
Events
Since v, is distributed normally, the probability in Equation 23-9 can be

calculated from the integral under the standard normal curve. By dividing the
full length of the path Linton small ruscrete pieces each of length d.x., the average
probability of passing within each piece j can be estimated as the average of the
probabilities at the start and end of each piece:
P(vJ == 0.5[F(x -dx) + F(x)] Equation 23-10
where F(x) is the cumulative probability of normal distribution, and the other
variables are as defined previously.
The expected number of times that the average bicyclist passes users of mode
i over the entire path segment is then determined by multiplying P(v) by the
density of users of mode i and summing over all portions of the segment. The
number of passings per minute is then obtained by dividing the result by the
number of minutes required for the bicyclist to traverse the path segment:
n q; 1
A;== 'I:P(v;)x-x-dxi Equation 23-11
j -1 J.l; t
where
A; expected passings per minute of mode i by average bicyclist,
q; directional hourly flow rate of mode i (modal users/h),
f..l; average speed of mode i (mi/h),
path segment travel time for average bicyclist (min), and
dx; length of discrete segment j (mi).
TI1e other variables arc as previously defined.
Research (7) found that setting dx equal to 0.01 mi is appropriate for the
purposes of the calculations shown in Equation 23-11 and below.
Equation 23-11 provides expected passings by the average bicyclist for mode
i. To determine total active passings of all modes, Equation 23-11 must be
repeated for each individual mode and then summed:
AT== 'LA;
i
Equation 23-12
where Ar is the expected active pa!:iSings per minute by the average bicyclist
during the peak 15 min, and the other variables are as defined previously.
Step 3: Calculate Meetings per Minute

Meetings arc defined as the number of path users traveling in the opposing
direction to the average bicyclist that the average bicyclist passes on the path
segment. All users present on the path when the average bicyclist enters will be
Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-17 Methodology

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manua/20 10
passed by the average bicyclist, assuming that no user enters or exits the path at
an intermediate point:
Equation 23-13 M, = !:!_ L !1!_

60 i f.l;
where M 1 is the meetings per minute of users already on the path segment and U
is the speed of the average bicyclist in miles per hour. The other variables arc as
previously defined.
In addition to users already on the path segment, a number of users w ho
have yet to enter the segment will meet the average bicyclist within the segment.
The probability of this occurrence is
Equation 23-14
where
probability of meeting opposing user of mode i,
V; speed of path user of mode i (mi/h),
X distance of user beyond end of path segment (mi), and
u speed of average bicyclist (mi/h).
Since v 0 ; is distributed normally, the probabmty in Equation 23-14 can be
readily calculated from the area under the standard normal curve. The length of
path beyond the analysis segment that may supply users who wi ll be met by the
average bicyclist is defined as x*. By dividing x* into 11 small discrete pieces, each
of length dx, the average probability of meeting a modal user from each piece can
be estimated by Equation 23-10. Although some meetings will occur with very
fast path users located greater than L distance beyond the end of the segment
when the average bicyclist enters, setting x* equal to Lis sufficient to guarantee
that at least 99% of meetings will be captured (7). Exhibit 23-13 provides a
schematic of meeting events.
Exhibit 23-13
Schematic of Meeting Events
L
X dx
Similar to the process for calculating number of active passings (Equation 23-
11), the estimation of number of meetings with users from a particular mode
group not on the path segment when the average bicyclist enters is
II q. 1
Equation 23-15 M 2; =LP(v0 Jx-' x-dxi
j-1 f.J.; t
where M2; is the expected meetings per minute of users of mode i located beyond
the end of the path segment at the time the average bicycle enters the segment,
and the other variables arc as previously defined.

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 20 I0
Finally, the total number of expected meetings per minute during the peak
15 min Mr is determined by adding M 1 to the sum of M 2, across all mode groups:
Mr =(M 1 + 'L:M 2 ; ) Equation 23-16

i
All variables are as previously defined.

In the special case of a one-way path, there arc no opposing users to meet;
therefore, Mr is zero.
Step 4: Determine Number of Lanes

The effective number of lanes on a shared-use path affects the number of
delayed passings: as the number of lanes increases, delayed passings decrease.
Even paths withou t painted lane markings will operate with a de facto number
of lanes. The relationship between path width and the number of effective
operational lanes is shown in Exhibit 23-14.
Path Width (ft)_ _ ~n~

Exhibit 23-14
S.G-10.5 2 Effective Lanes by Path Width
1l.G-14.5 3
15.G-20.0 4
SOUrce: Hummer et al. (7).
Step 5: Calculate Probability of Delayed Passing

Delayed passing maneuvers occur when there is a path user ahead of the
overtaking average bicyclist in the subject direction and another path user in the
opposing direction, such that the average bicyclist cannot immediately make the
passing maneuver. The probability of a de layed passing depends on the passing
distance required, which in tum depends on both the overtaking mode and the
mode of the user being passed. The passing distances that bicyclists require to
pass other user modes are shown in Exhibit 23-15.
__Qyertaking Mode ~ode PasseL_Required Passing Distance (ft) _ Exhibit 23· 15

Bicycle Bicyclist 100 Required Bicycle Passing Distance
Bicycle Pedestrian 60
Bicycle Inline skater 100
Bicycle Runner 70
Bisycle Child bicyclist 70
Source: Hummer et al. (7).
With the values in Exhibit 23-1 5, the probability that a given section will be
vacant of a given mode for at least the required p assing distance p; can be
estima ted by using a Poisson distribution. The probability of observing at least
one modal user in the passing section is the complement of the probability of
observing a vacant section. The probabili ty P..; of observing a blocked passing
section for mode i is
Equation 23-17
where
P, 1 probability of passing section's being blocked by mode i,
p; distance req uired to pass mode i (mi), and

December 2010
k; = density of users of mode i (users/mi).

Equation 23-17 is applicable to both the subject and opposing directions.
Two-Lane Paths
On a two-lane path, delayed passing occurs when, within the distance
required to complete a pass p, the average bicyclist encounters one of the
following: traffic in both directions, each blocking a single lane, or no traffic in
the subject direction in conjunction with traffic in the opposing direction that is
being overtaken by an opposing bicyclist. Note that these situa tions are mutually
exclusive. The delayed p assing probabilities in the subject and opposing
directions are
Equation 23·18 pds = pnoP,s + P,,o(l - Pn.J(1- pdo)
Equation 23-19 prlo = P,,oP,,s + P,,s (1 - P,uJ(1- PdJ
where
P11< probabili ty of delayed passing in subject direction,
P,1., probability of delayed passing in opposing direction,
P,., probability of blocked lane in opposing direction, and
P,~ probability of blocked lane in subject direction.
Solving Equation 23-18 and Equation 23-19 for Pd< results in
Equation 23-20
p = pno pns + P,o (1- P,~~ ) 2
ds 1- P,oP,s (1 - P,o)(1- P,,s)
Since P,0 and P,. are calculated from Equation 23-17, Equation 23-20 can be
readily solved for Pds·
Three-Lane Paths
The operations of three-lane paths are more complicated than those of two-
lane paths, since there is a greater variety of possible scenarios that may occu r.
The methodology includes several limiting assumptions regarding user behavior:
• Bicyclists in the subject direction use only the two rightmost lanes,
• Bicyclists in the opposing direction use only the two leftmost lanes,
• Passing mancuv·e rs occur only in the middle lane and never in the left
lane, and
• Groups of users may sometimes block the two lanes allocated to that
direction but cannot block all three lanes.
As a result, a delayed passing occurs in two cases: (a) traffic in the subject
direction is blocking the rightmost lane in conjunction with opposing traffic
occupying the other two lanes, or (b) side-by-side users are blocking the two
rightmost lanes in the subject direction. The probabilities of the occurrence of a
delayed passing in the subject and opposing directions are given by
Methodology Page 23-20 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicyde Fadlities

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 20 10
pds = P,,s[pbo + P,,o (1- ptfo)] + pbs Equation 23-21
Equation 23-22
pdo = P,,o [Pbs + P,,_~ (1- ~Is)]+ pbo
where P00 is the probability of two blocked lanes in the opposing direction, Pbs is
the p robability of two blocked lanes in the subject direction, and all other
variables are as previously defined.
Equation 23-21 and Equation 23-22 are simultaneous equations with two
unknowns, Prls and Pd"· Defining D as PJ.- Prlu gives the following equation:
D =[(Pbs - pbo )+ (Pnspbo - P,wPbJ]/(1- P11)~,J Equation 23-23
Substituting Equation 23-23 into Equation 23-21 results in

pds = [PIIS (Pbo + P,,oC1 + D))+ pbJ/(1 + P,,5 P,.J Equation 23- 24
This model requires determining four probability parameters: specifically, P,

and Pb in each direction. Calculating these parameters requires estimating the
fraction of ali events in which both lanes are blocked. These parameters were
established through research (7) in which video data of more than 4,000 path
users on U.S. shared-usc paths were observed. Exhibit 23-16 shows the blocking
frequencies by mode.
Mode Frequency of Blocking(%) Exhibit 23-16

Bicycle 5 Frequency of Blocking of Two
Pedestrian 36 Lanes
Inline skater 8
Runner 12
Child bicyclist 1
Source: Hummer et al. (l).
Therefore, P""' and P,.;, the probabilities that a user of mode i will block two
lanes in the opposing and subject directions, respectively, are found by
multiplying the frequency of blocking two lanes by a particular user of mode i
(Exhibit 23-16) by the probability that a user of mode i will be encountered,
which was given by Equation 23-17. This process results in
Equation 23-25
pbsi = F; X P,,~;
Equation 23-26
p boi = F; X P,oi
where F; is the frequency with which mode i will block two Janes, from Exhibit
23-16, and all other variables are as previously defined. The probability that a
user of any mode w ill block two lanes is thus given by
pbs= L~1si Equation 23-27
Equation 23- 28
The probabilities that only a single lane will be blocked by a user of a given
mode i, Pqsi and Pqo;, are thus derived from the probability that at least one lane
will be blocked (from Equation 23-17) min us the probability that two lanes will
be blocked (from Equation 23-25 and Equation 23-26). These probabilities are

December 2010
Equation 23-29 Pm i -1-

- e:>- p,k,., - D
r bsi
Equation 23-30 P . = 1-e- p,k,, -P, .

1101 />01
where k$; and k"; are the densities of users of mode i in users per mile in the
subject and opposing directions, respectively, and all other variables are as
previously defined.
The probabilities that a user of any mode will block a single lane are thus
given by
Equation 23-31
Equation 23·32
The values of P,. and P1" from Equation 23-27 and Equation 23-28, and the
values of P,, and P,11, from Equation 23-31 and Equation 23-32 can now be
substituted into Equation 23-23 and Equation 23-24 to determine the probability
of delayed passing, P11, . This delayed passing factor was calibrated by using peak
hour volumes, rather than peak 15-min volumes. Therefore, a peak hour factor is
applied to convert Ar from peak 15-min flow rate conditions back to hourly
conditions.
Four-Lane Paths
On four-Jane paths, the methodology assumes that the path operates
similarly to a divided four-lane highw ay, such that the probability of delayed
passing is independent of opposing users, since no passing occurs in the leftmost
lanes. Thus, the probability of delayed passing P", is equivalent to the probability
that both subject lanes will be blocked 1\, which can be found by using Equation
23-25 and Equation 23-27.
Step 6 : Calculate Delayed Passings per Minute

The probability of delayed passing P,1,, described earlier, applies only to a
single pair of modal path users (e.g., a bicyclist passing a pedestrian and
opposed by a runner). The total probability of delayed passing Pra, must be
calculated from all modal pairs. S.ince there are five modes, there are five times
five (25) total modal pairs that require calculation. The total probability of
delayed passing is found by using
Equation 23-33 P Tds =1- n

Ill
(1- P,nds)
where 1\.ts is the total probability of delayed passing and P,., is the probability of
delayed passing for modem. The operator n in Equation 23-33 indicates the
product of a series of variables.
Finally, delayed passings per minute are simply the active passings per
minute ATmultiplied by the total probability of delayed passing P,.,:
Equation 23-34 Delayed Passings per Minute= A,. x Pr,1, x PHF

Oecember 2010
This delayed passing fa ctor was calibrated by using peak hour volumes
rather than peak 15-min volumes. Therefore, a peak hour factor is applied to
corwert Ar from peak 15-min flow rate conditions back to hourly conditions.

The bicycle LOS score (Equation 23-35) uses inputs from Steps 2, 3, and 6
plus facil ity data ga thered in Step 1. The equation was developed from a
regression model of user responses to video clips depicting a variety of off-street
bicycle facilities (7). The LOS C- D threshold represents the midpoint of the
response scale used in the survey.
Bicycle LOS Score = 5.446- 0.00809(£) - 15.86(RW) - 0.287(CL) - O.S(DP) Equation 23-35
where
E weighted events per minute = meetings per minute+
10 x (active passings per minute);
RW reciprocal of pa th width= 1/path width (ft);
CL 1 if trail has centerline, 0 if no centerline; and
DP min [delayed passings per minute, 1.5].
With the exception of the special cases discussed in Step 8 below, the
bicyclist perception index is used d irectly with Exhibit 23-5 to determine bicyclist
LOS on off-street facilities. As was the case with shared pedestrian facilities, the
LOS E- F threshold docs not reflect the capacity of an off-street bicycle facility,
but rather a point at which the number of meetin g and passing events results in a
severely diminished experience for bicyclists using the path.
Step 8: Adjust LOS for Low-Volume Paths

For narrow paths (i.e., 8ft in width), it is not possible to achieve LOS 1\. orB
by using Equation 23-35. Since paths with very low volumes would be expected
to result in a high perceived quality of service, the following adjustments are
made to the LOS results:
• All paths with five or fewer weighted events per minute are assigned
LOSA.
• All paths with >5 to 10 weighted events per minute are assigned LOS B,
unless Equation 23-35 would result in LOS A.
Chapter 23/0 ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-23 Methodology
December 2010
3 . APPLICATIONS
This chapter's methodologies evaluate the LOS of exclusive pedestrian and

bicycle facilities. The analyst must address two fundamental issues. First, the
primary outputs must he identified. These may include LOS, effective width Wr,
or achievable path flow rate Qr- Second, any necessary default or estimated
values must be identified. There are three basic sources of input data:
1. Default values provided in the HCM;
2. Estimates or locally derived default values developed by the user; and
3. Values derived from field measurements and observation.
When it is possible to obtain them, field measurements are preferable to
default values.
DEFAULT VALUES
For pedestrians on off-street paths, a default average speed of 3.4 mi/h for
pedestrians and 12.8 mi/ h for bicycles can be applied in the absence of local data
(7). Default values for off-street bicycle facilities are summarized in Exhibit 23-17:
Exhibit 23-17 Variable User Group Default Value

Default Values for Exclusive Bicycle 55%
Off-Street Bicycle Facilities Pedestrian 20%
Mode split Runner 10%
Inline skater 10%
Child bicyclist 5%
Bicycle 12.8 mi/h
Pedestrian 3.4 mifh
Mean speed by mode Runner 6.5 mi/h
Inline skater 10.1 mifh
Child bicyclist 7.9 mi/h
Bicycle 3.4 mi/h
Pedestrian 0.6 mi/h
Standard deviation of speed
Runner 1.2 mi/h
by mode
Inline skater 2.7 mifh
Child bicyclist 1.9 mi/h
Bicycle 5%
Pedestrian 36%
Proportion of users blocking
Runner 12%
two lanes by mode
Inline skater 8%
Child bicyclist 1%
Peak hour factor N/A 0.85
SOurce: Hummer et al. ( 7).
ANALYSIS BOUNDARIES
As stated in this chapter's introduction, exclusive pedestrian and bicycle
facilities are analyzed at the segment level, with segment endpoints being
defined by street crossing locations, changes in path width, intersecHons with
other paths that create cross flows or change path demand, and transition points
to other types of facili ties (e.g., from path to ramp). In most cases, the minimum
segment length will be around 0.25 mi, and the maximum segment length will be
2 to 3 mj (7). Certain kinds of facilities, such as stairways, cross-flow areas, and
pedestrian plazas, will have shorter segment lengths.
Applications Page 23-24 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
TYPES OF ANALYSIS
Operational Analysis
A common application of operational analysis is to compute the LOS of a
facility under existing or future demand. The effective width o f the facility is an
input to the calcu lation an d LOS is an output.
Design Analysis
Design applications require that an LOS goal be established, with the Designing for an effective width.
primary output being the facility d esign characteristics required or the maximu m
user volumes allowable for the LOS goal. For instance, a design analysis for a
pedestrian walkway may estimate the minimum effective width WE needed to
achieve a design LOS value. In this case, the m aximum pedestrian unit flow rate
for the desired service level wou ld be determined from Exhibit 23-1 or Exhibit
23-2. The effective width would be computed by solving the pedestrian unit
flow-rate equation backward. To avoid pedestrian spillover, it is desirable to
design a walkway to achieve LOS Cor better (i.e., a m aximum of 10 p/min/ft).
Stairways arc desirably designed to ach ieve LOS Cor D.
Similarly, the achievable path flow rate Qr can be solved as the primary Determining se!Yice volumes.
output. For exclusive bicycle facilities, the minimum LOS perception score for the
design LOS would be determined from Exhibit 23-5. By holding all but one path
user group's demand constant and solving the events equation backward, the
service volume for the user grou p of interest can be computed.
Planning and Preliminary Engineering Analyses

Planning and preliminary engineering analyses use estimates, IJCM default
values, or local default values as inputs and determine LOS, bicycle flow rate,
effective width, or all three, as outputs. The difference between a plann ing
analysis and an operational or design analysis is that most or all of the input
values in planning come from estimates or default values, whereas operational
and design analyses tend to use field measurements or known values for m ost or
all of the input variables.
SPECIAL CASES
Pedestrian Plazas
Pedestrian plazas are large, paved areas that serve multiple functions,
including pedestrian circulation, special events, and seating. The circulati on
function is of interest here, although the design of a plaza must consider how all
of the functions interact. For example, queues from areas designated for food
vendors may intrude into a pedestrian circulation route, reducing the route's
effective width, or two circulation routes may intersect each other, creating a
cross-flow area. In addition, research has shown that the circulation and a menity
functions of a plaza sometimes conflict, since people tend to linger longer in
plazas that do not act as thoroughfares (9).
The exclusive pedestrian walkway methodology can be used to analyze
pedestrian circulation routes through pedestrian plazas. The methodology does
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-25 Applications

December 2010
Highway C opacity Man ua/ 20 I 0
not address the need or desire to have space for amenities within a pedestrian
plaza. The effective width of such a route is not as easily identified as that of a
walkway, because the edges of the circulation area are often undefined.
However, pedestrians will tend to take the shortest available route across the
plaza, as illustrated in Exhibit 23-18.
Exhibit 23-18
Pedestrian Circulation Space
in a Pedestrian Plaza
The effective width of a circulation route is influenced by the widths of the

entrance and exit points to the plaza and by the presence of obstacles (e.g., walls,
poles, signs, benches). Effective width may also be influenced by whether a
change in texture is used to mark the transition between circulation and amenity
space. Between 30% and 60% of pedestrians wiJl use plaza space that is flush
with a sidewalk, with the higher percentages applying to wider plazas and those
that help cut a corner and the lower percentages applying to narrower plazas
and those with obstacles (9).
For design applications, peak pedestrian demands through the plaza would
need to be estimated. Given this information and a design LOS, a minimum
effective width could be determined for each circulation route. Multiplying the
width of the route by the length of the route and summing for all routes results
in the space required for pedestrian circulation. Space requirements for sitting
areas and other plaza functions are added to the circulation space to determine
the total plaza space required.
For operational applications, an average effective width can be determined
through field observation of the space occupied by pedestrians on a circulation
route during peak times. Dividing an average per minute pedestrian volume by
the effective width gives the pedestrian flow rate for the circulation route, from
which LOS can be determined.
Pedestrian Zones
Pedestrian zones are streets dedicated to exclusive pedestrian use on a full-
or part-time basis. These zones can be analyzed from an operational standpoint
by using the exclusive pedestrian walkway methodology, as long as the kinds of
obstructions listed in Exhibit 23-11, such as sidewalk cafe tables, are taken into
account. Other performance measures may be considered that assess the street's
attractiveness to pedestrians, since a successful pedestrian zone is expected to be
relatively crowded (i.e.r to have a lower LOS). Although an uncrowded zone
would have a high LOS, it could be perceived by pedestrians as being a potential
personal security risk, because of the lack of other users.
Applications Page 23-26 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
The HCM methodology is not suitable for pedestrian zones during times
when delivery vehicles arc allowed to use the street. The HCM methodology is
also not applicable to the analysis of a low-speed street (e.g., a Dutch-style
woonerf> shared by pedestrians, bicycles, and automobiles.
Walkways with Grades over solo

Research (9-11) has shown no appreciable impact on pedestrian speed for Consult the latest version of the ADA
grades up to 5%. As shown in Exhibit 23-19, above a S(Y., grade, walking speeds Accessibility Guidelines for guidance
on the ma.ldmum slope allowed on an
drop as grade increases, with travel on a 12% grade being about 30% slower than accessible route.
travel on a level surface. Grade may not have an appreciable impact on capacity,
however, since the reduction in pedestrian speed is offset by closer pedestrian
spacing (9). The stairway LOS table (Exhibit 23-3) would provide a conservative
estimate of pedestrian LOS on steeper walkways.
5% 6% 8% Exhibit 23· 19
3,000
Effect of Vertical Climb on
Horizontal Distance Walked
14%
!
I
I
soo
0
50 100
' - - ·--
150 200 250 300
Vertkal Distance Climbed (ft)
Source: Munidpal Planning Association (11).
Paths Segregating Pedestrians and Bicyclists

Some paths are signed or striped, or both, to segregate bicyclists from
pedestrians. Where field observation on the path (or simi lar paths in the same
region) indicates that path users generally comply with the regulations, up to all
of the bicycle- pedestrian pass.ing events could be converted to meeting events in
proportion to the path users' compliance rate, resulting in an improved LOS.
Where sufficient physical segregation of bicyclists and pedestr.ians occurs, it may
be appropriate to treat the path as two separate facilities.
USE OF ALTERNATIVE TOOLS

To date, there is no widely used computer simulation software in the United
States that is capable of descri bing user interactions on shared-use paths in a
realisti c manner. Microsimulation has been used to model pedestrian interactions
on off-street pedestrian facilities. ln many cases, these models were developed to
model pedestrian movements within airports or transit facilities.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-27 Applications

December 2010
4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS
Exhibit 23-20 Example

list of Example Problems Problem Description Application
1 Pedestrian LOS on shared-use and exclusive paths Operational analysis
2 Bicycle LOS on a shared-use path Planning analysis
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 1: PEDESTRIAN LOS ON SHARED-USE AND

EXCLUSIVE PATHS
The Facts
The following information was collected in the field for this path:
• Q,b = bicycle volume in same direction = 100 bicycles/h;
• Q,>b =bicycle volume in opposing direction= 100 bicycles/h;
• v 15 = peak 15-min pedestrian volume = 100 pedestrians;
• PI-IF = peak hour factor= 0.83;
• Sr = average pedestrian speed = 4.0 ft/s (2.7 mi/h);
• Sb= average bicycle speed= 16.0 ft/s (10.9 mi/h); and
• No pedestrian platooning was observed.
Step 1: Gathe r Input Data

The shared-use-path pedestrian LOS methodology requires pedestrian and
bicycle speeds and bicycle demand, all of which are available from the field
measurements just given.
Step 2 : Calculate Number of Bicycle Passing and Meeting Events

The number of passing events FP is determined from Equation 23-5:
F
P
=~(~-
PHF
sp)
Sb
F =100 bicydes/h ( 1 - 4.0 ft/s )

11
0.83 16.0 ft/s
f~ = 90 events/h
The number of meeting events Fmis determined from Equation 23-6:
F
"'
= Qob
PHF
(1 + SP)
S b
F = 100 bicycles/h ( 1 + 4.0 ft/s)

Ill 0.83 16.0 ft/s
Fm = 150 events/h
Example Problems Page 23-28 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
December 2010
The total number of events is calculated from Equation 23-7:
F =(FP +0.5F"')
F = (90 events/h + (0.5)(150 events/h))
F =165 events/h
Step 3: Determine Shared-Use-Path Pedestrian LOS
The shared-usc-path LOS is determined from Exhibit 23-4. The value ofF,
165 eventc;/h, falls into the LOSE range. Since this value is rather low, what
would happen if a parallel, 5-ft-wide, pedestrian-only path were provided?
Step 4: Compare Exclusive-Path Pedestrian LOS
Step 4.1: Determine Effective Walkway Width

Assum ing that no obstacles exist on or immediately adjacent to the path, the
effective width would be the same as the actual width, or 5 ft. Common
ameni ties located along ped estrian walkways include trash cans and benches.
from Exhibit 23-11, these should be located at least 3.0 ft and 5.0 ft, respectively,
from the edge of the p ath to avoid affecting the e ffective width.
Step 4.2: Calculate Pedestrian Flow Rate

Since a peak-15-min pedestrian volume was measured in the field, it is not
necessary to use Equation 23-2 to determine v15• The unit flow rate for the
walkway v1, is determined from Equation 23-3 as follows:
v = - -v1s
=-
p 15xWF.
lOOp
v =--.::;__
P 15x5ft
vp =1.3 p/ft/min
Step 4.3: Calculate Average Pedestrian Space
Average pedestrian sp ace is determined by rearranging Equation 23-4:
A,, = s,, I v,,
AP =(4.0 ft/s)(60 s/rnin) / (1.3 p/ft/rnin)
A 11 =18Ste/p
Step 4. 4: Determine LOS

Since no pedestrian platooning was observed, Exhibit 23-1 should be used to
determine the LOS. A value of 185 ft2/min corresponds to LOS A.
Chapter 2310ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fad lities Page 23-29 Example Problems
December 2010
Discussion
The existing mixed-usc path operates at LOSE for pedestrians. Pedestrian
LOS would increase to LOS A if a parallel, 5-ft-wide pedestrian path were
provided.
EXAMPLE PROBLEM 2: BICYCLE LOS ON A SHARED-USE PATH
The Facts
A new shared-use path is being planned. On the basis of data from a similar
faci lity in the region, it is estimated that the path will have a peak-hour volume
of 340 users, a peak hour factor of 0.90, and a 50/50 directional split. The path will
be 10ft wide, with no obstacles, and will not have a centerline. The segment
analyzed here is 3 mi long.

Facility and overall d emand data arc available but not the mode split of users
or the average mode group speed. Those values will need to be defaulted by
using Exhibit 23-17. On the basis of the default mode split and the estimated
directional split, the directional hourly volume by mode is as follows:
• Directional bicycle flow rate= 340 users/h x 0.5 x 0.55/0.90 = 104
bicycles/h;
• Directional pedestrian flow rate= 340 x 0.5 x 0.20/0.90 = 38 p/h;
• Directional runner flow rate= 340 x 0.5 x 0.10/0.90 = 19 runners/h;
• Directional in line skater flow rate= 340 x 0.5 x 0.10/0.90 =19 skaters/h;
and
• Directional child bicyclist volume = 340 x 0.5 x 0.05/0.90 = 9 child
bicyclists/h.
From Exhibit 23-17, average mode group speeds and standard deviations are
as follows:
• Bicycle: average speed = 12.8 mi/11, standard dcviati<.m = 3.4 mi/h;
• Pedestrian: average speed = 3.4 mi/h, standard deviation= 0.6 mi/h;
• Runner: average speed = 6.5 mi/h, standard deviation = 1.2 mi/h;
• lnline skater: average speed= 10.1 mi/h, standard deviation = 2.7 mi/h;
and
• Child bicyclist: average speed= 7.9 mi/h, standard deviation= 1.9 mi/h.
Step 2: calculate Active Passings per Minute

Active passings per minute must be calculated separately for each mode, by
u ~;;ingEquation 23-9 through Equation 23-11 . For the number of bicycles passed
per minute, the path is considered as broken into n slices, each of which has a
length dx of 0.01 mi, and a total path segment length L of 3 mi. Then, for the first
slice, from Equation 23-9:
Example Problems Page 23-30 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicyde Facilities
December 2010
P(v;) == P[v; < U(1-~)]

L
F(x) = P[v; <12.8(1 - O.Ol)]=P[v; < 12.76] =0.4949
3
0
F(x - dx) = P[v; < 12.8(1 --)] == P[v; < 12.80] = 0.5000
3
Applying Equation 23-10 and Equation 23-11 then gives the following
probability of passing for the first slice:
P(v;) = 0.5[ F(x - dx) + F(x)]
P(V;) = 0.5[0.5000 + 0.4949] = 0.4975
II qi 1
A; = LP(v;)x - x - dxi
j ;:l J.l; t
104 1
Ail =0.4975 X - X -(0.01) = 0.0029
12.8 14
Repeating this procedure for all slices from 1 to n and summing the results
yields
Passings of bicycles per minute= 0.0029 + A2 + ... +A, = 0.19
With the same methodology for each mode, the following active passings per
minute are found for the other modes:
• Pedestrians, 1.74;
• Runners, 0.30;
• Inline skaters, 0.09; and
• Child bicyclists, 0.10.
Total active passings are then determined by using Equation 23-12:
AT= LA;
i
Total passings per minute = (O.J 9 + 1.74 + 0.30 + 0.09 + 0.10) = 2.42
Step 3: Calculate Meetings per Minute

Meetings per minute of users already on the path segment M 1 are calculated
for each mode with Equation 23-13:
M-U"!L_
1 - ~
60 i l-1;
M l = (12.8/60) X [(104/12.8) + (38/3.4) + (19/6 .6) + (19/10.1) + (9/7.9)] = 5.36
Meetings per minute of users not yet on the path segment must be calculated
separately for each mode. For the number of bicycles passed per minute, the
section of path beyond the study segment is considered as broken into n slices,
each of which has length dx = 0.01 mi, and a total segment length X equivalent to
L (3 mi). Then, for the first slice, from Equation 23-14:
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-31 Example Problems
December 2010
P(v0 ;) = P(v; >XL)

u
12 8
F(x) = P[v; > 0.01 x · 1= P[v; > 0.4267] = 0.9999
3
12 8
F(x) = P[v; >Ox · ] = P[v; > 0] = 1.0000
3
Applying Equation 23-10 and Equation 23-15 then gives the probability of
passing in the first slice:
P(v;) = 0.5[ F(x- dx) + F(x)]
P(v;) = 0.5 [0.99992 + 1.0000] = 0.99996
II q. 1
M 2; =LP(v0 ;)x - ' x-dxi
j -1 f.J ; t
M21 = 0.99996 X (104/12.8) X (1/14) X 0.01 = 0.0058
Repeating this procedure for all slices from 1 ton and summing the results
yields
M2; = meetings of !bicycles per minute = 0.0058 + M22 + ... + M 211 = 1.54
Repeating the foregoing procedure for the other modes, the following
meetings per minute are found for each mode:
• Pedestrians, 0.63i
• Runners, 0.31;
• lnline skaters, 0.31i and
• Child bicyclists, 0.16.
Total meetings are then determined by using Equation 23-16:
M T = (Ml + _LM2i)
Total meetings per minute= [5.36 + 1.54 + 0.63 + 0.31 + 0.31 + 0.16] = 8.31
Step 4: Determine the Number of Lanes

From Exhibit 23-14, a 10-ft-wide path has two effective lanes.
Step 5: Calculate t he Probability of Delayed Passing

From Step 4, it is clear that a path with a width of 10ft will operate as two
lanes. Therefore, delayed passings per minute must be calculated separately for
each of the 25 modal pairs, by using Equation 23-17 and Equation 23-20. For
instance, considering the probability of a delayed passing of a bicyclist as a result
of an opposing bicyclist's overtaking a pedestrian gives the following:
P.
Ill
= l-e-l';k,
P,. = 1- exp[-(100/5280) x (1/0.90 (94/12.8))] = 1 -0.858 = 0.142
P,,., = 1 - expl-(100/5280) x (1/0.90 (38/3.4))] = 1-0.810 = 0.190
Example Problems Page 23-32 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
December 2010
Substituting into Equation 23-20 then yields PtJs·:
- P,O P,IS +P,.o (1- P,,J2

Pd -
s 1- P,.oPus(1- P,,o)(1- pus)
2
p = 0.190x0.142 + 0.190(1 -0.142) = 0.
1698
ds 1-0.190 x0.142(1- 0.190)(1 - 0.142)
Performing the foregoing procedures for each of the 25 modal pairs and
applying Equation 23-33 gives the total probability of delayed passing:
P Tdr =I - n
m
1- pmd•
Pr,1s = 1 - ( 1 - 0.1698) (1 -Pus) ... (1 - P,d.) = 0.8334
Thus, the probability of delayed passing is 83.34%.
Step 6: Determine Delayed Passings per Minute

Equation 23-34 is used to determine the total number of delayed passings per
minute:
Delayed passings per minute = A 1 x Pn1,x PHF
Total delayed passings per minute = 0.8334 x 2.42 x 0.90 = 1.82
The delayed passing factor has a maximum of 3. The total delayed passings
per minute (1.82) is less than 3. Therefore the delayed passing factor is set to 1.82.
Step 7: Calculate LOS

Equation 23-35 is used to determine the bicycle LOS score for the path:
Bicycle LOS Score=
5.446-0.00809 [8.58 + (JO X 2.42)]-15.86(1/10) - 0.287(0) - 0.5(1.82) = 2.69
Because the bicyclist perception index is between 2.5 and 3.0, the facility
operates at LOS D according to Exhibit 23-5.
Results
The results indicate that the path would operate close to its fun ctional
capacity. A slightly wider path would provide three effective Janes and a better
LOS.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-33 Example Problems
December 2010
5. REFERENCES
Many of these references can 1. Kittelson & Associates, Inc., KFH Group, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
be found in the Technical
Reference Library in Volume 4. Douglass/ Inc. and K Hunter-Zaworski. TCRP Report 100: Transit Capacity
1
and Quality ofSeroice Manual, 2nd ed . Transportation Research Board of the

National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003.
2. Landis, B. W., V. R. Vattik uti1 and M. T. Brannick. Real-Time Human
Perceptions: Toward a Bicycle Level of Service. In Transportation Research
Record 1578, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Wash ington, D.C., 1997, pp. 119- 126.
3. Dowling, R G.1 D. B. Reinke, A. Flannery, P. Ryus, M. Vandehey, T. A.
Petritsch B. W. Landis N. M. Rouphail and J. A. Bonneson. NCHRP Report
1 1 1
616: Multimodal Level of Service Analysis for Urban Streets. Transportation

Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008.
4. Jensen, S. U. Pedestrian and Bicyclist Level of Se.rvice on Roadway Segments.
In Transportation Research Record: Joumal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2031, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies,
Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 43-51.
5. Rouphail, N., J. Hummer, J. Milazzo II, and P. Allen. Capacity Analyt:is of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Recommended Procedures for the "Pedestrians"
Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-107. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1998.
6. Rouphail, N., J. Hummer, J. Milazzo JT, and P. Allen. Capacity Analysis of
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities: Recommended Procedures for the "Bicycles"
Chapter of the Highway Capacity Manual. Report FHWA-RD-98-108. Federal
High way Administration, Washington, D.C., Feb. 1998.
7. Hummer, J. E., N. M. Rouphail, J. L. Toole, R. S. Patten, R. J. Schneider, J. S.
Green, R. G. Hughes, and S. J. Fain. Evaluation of Safety Design, and Operation
1
of Shared-Use Paths - Final Report. Report FHWA-HRT-05-137. Federal

Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., July 2006.
8. Landis, B. W., T. A. Petritsch, and H. F. Huang. Characteristics of Emerging
Road and Trail Users and Their Safety. Report FHWA-HRT-04-103. Federal
Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Oct. 2004.
9. Pushkarev, B., and J. M. Zupan. Urban Space for Pedestrians: A Report£!{ the
Regional Plan Association. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press,
Cambridge, 1975.
10. Fruin, J. J. Pedestrian Planning and Design, rev. ed . Elevator World, Inc.,
Mobile, Ala., 1987.
11. Municipal Planning Association. Transit: A Part of the Pittsburgh Plan. Report
No. 3. Pittsburgh, Pa., 1923.
12. Khisty, C. J. Pedestrian Cross Plows in Corridors. In Transportation Research
Record 847, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1982, pp. 54-57.
References Page 23-34 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

December 2010
13. Virkler, M . Quality of Flow Along Pedestrian Arterials. Presented at 18th

Annual Austra li an Road Research Board Transport Research
Confcrencc(fransi t New Zealand Land Transport Symposium, Christchurch,
New Zealand, Sept. 1996.
14. Botma, H. Method to Determine Level of Service for Bicycle Paths and
Pedestrian-Bicycle Paths. In Tm11sportntioa Research Record 1502,
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington,
D.C., 1995, pp. 38-44.
Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-35 References

December 2010
0 .t
II
Highway Capacity Monua/2010
VOLUME 3 INDEX
The index to Volume 3 lists the text citations of the terms defined in the
Glossary (Volu me 1, Chapter 9). Volumes 1, 2, and 3 are separately indexed. In
the index listings, the first number in each hyphenated pair of numbers indicates
the chapter, and the number after the hyphen indicates the page within the
chapter.
Bicycle facility, 23-2, 23-5, 23-9, 23-17

A Bicycle lane, 16-13, 16-29, 16-30, 16-32,
Access point, 17-9, 17-68 16-33, 16-35, 16-36, 16-38, 16-40, 16-41,
Accessibility, 16-14, 17-25,21-39,23-21 16-43,16-45, 16-46,17-16,17-19,17-36,
Active passings, 23-10, 23-24 17-50, 17-51, 17-55, 17-56, 17-58, 17-71,
Active traffic management (ATM), 16-27 17-87, 17-88, 17-90, 17-92, 18-25, 18-27,
All-way STOP-controlled, 16-13, 16-16, 18-70, 18-71, 18-72, 18-73, 18-80,
16-18, 16-21, 16-26, 16-27, 17-24, 17-26, 18-102,18-103, 18-104,20-1 9,23-1
17-28, 17-45, 17-55, 17-61, 19-30, 20-1, Bicycle mode, 17-6, 18-5, 18-28, 18-79
21-1,22-36 Bicycle path, 23-1,23-5, 23-7
Alternative tool, 17-72, 17-73, 18-82, Bicycle speed, 17-56, 23-4, 23-7, 23-8,
21 -1,21 -24,21 -25, 22-54 23-22
Analysis period, 16-1, 16-2, 16-3, 17-1, Boundary intersection, 16-5, 16-7, 17-·1,
17-2, 17-3, 18-1, 18-2, 18-3, 19-3, 19-4, 17-4, 17-5
20-3, 21 -2, 21-5, 22-58, 22-63, 23-6 Breakdown, 18-58
Analytical model, 21-4 Buffer width, 17-16, 17-20, 17-47, 17-50,
Approach delay, 17-80,18-88 17-51, 17-71
Approach grade, 18-8, 18-17, 18-76, 19-2 Bus lane, 16-28
Area type, 17-16,17-20, ] 7-70, ] 7-95, Bus shelter, 23-4
18-8, 18-24, 18-35, 18-37, ]8-75, 18-87, Bus stop, 16-32, 17-22, 17-23, 17-43,
22-15, 22-24, 22-59, 22-65 17-94, 17-95, 17-96, 18-8, 18-16, 18-37,
Arrival rate, 16-3, 17-3, 18-3,18-40, 18-76, 18-87, 22-15
18-46, 18-48, 18-52, 18-79, 18-92, 20-6, Bypass Jane, 21 -2, 21-7, 21-9, 21-10,
20-7 21-13, 2'1-14, 21-15,21 -18,21 -19,21 -28,
Arrival type, 16-26, 16-27, 18-13, 18-75, 21-29, 21-30, 21-32
22-15, 22-63
Average grade, 18-17
Average running speed, 17-13, 17-32,
c
17-56, 18-2..1 Calibration, 17-9, 17-16, 18-7, 18-24,
Average travel speed, 16-6, 16-41, 17-65, 18-106, 19-36, 21-6, 21-7, 21 -21,21-23,
17-73 21-26, 22-17
Call, 18-20, 18-21, 18-27, 18-89
Capacity, 16-2, 16-5, 16-7, 17-1, 17-2,
8 17-4, 18-1, 18-2,18-3,19-1,19-2,19-3,
Back of queue, 17-68, 18-57, 18-82 19-4, 20-2, 20-3, 20-5, 21-1, 21-4, 21-5,
Barrier, 16-31, 17-20, 17-50, 17-51, 17-88, 22-10, 22-12, 22-13, 23-1, 23-2, 23-5
18-21, 18-42, 18-43, 18-44, 23-1 Case, 19-6,19-7,19-28,19-41,19-50,
Barrier pair, 18-42, 18-43, 18-44 Central business district (CBD), 18-24
Base conditions, 18-71, 19-45 Change interval, 18-19, 18-20, 1.8-39,
Base saturation flow rate, 16-26, 16-27, 18-40, 18-62, 18-64, 18-96
18-8, 18-14, 18-15, 18-35, 18-71, 18-76, Circulating flow, 21-4,21-5, 21-13, 21-29,
22-15,22-16, 22-24,22-59, 22-64 21-34
Baseline uniform delay, 18-51, 18-52
Volume 3/Interrupted Flow Page V3-1 Volume 3 Index

December 2010
Circulation area, 16-12, 16-19, 16-20, Cross flow, 23-2,23-7,23-18

16-33, 16-38, 16-43, 17-46, 18-3, 18-4, Crossing time, 18-20, 20-18
18-60, 18-63, 18-65, 18-68, 18-97, 18-98, Crosswalk occupancy time, 18-67, 18-68,
18-99, 18-100, 18-102, 23-20 18-100
Circulatory roadway, 21-6, 21-7,21-16, Cycle, see Cycle failure; Cycle length
21-1.7 Cycle failure, 17-42, 18-6, 18-14, 18-48,
Clearance interval, 17-81,18-19,18-20, 18-55
18-21, 18-39,18-40,18-62, 1H-64, 18-89, Cycle length, 16-30, 17-32, 17-38, 17-61,
18-96, 22-15, 22-31 17-77, 17-81, 17-96,18-6, 18-8,22-15,
Clearance lost lime, 18-40, 18-45 22-28, 22-29, 22-30, 22-34
Clearance time, 18-89, 19-32, 19-38 Cydic spillback, "17-31
Cloverleaf interchange, 22-54
Collector street, 16-5, 16-6, 16-13, 17-1,
17-24, 17-68, 17-84, 17-90, 17-94
D
Common green time, 22-26, 22-27, 22-28, Daily service volume, 16-27
22-29, 22-30, 22-33 Default value, 16-1, 16-25, 16-29, 17-1,
Compressed diamond interchange, 22-2 17-8, 17-9, 17-16, 17-27, 17-67, 17-68,
Computational engine, 17-28, 17-80, 17-70, 17-72, 17-76, 18-2, 18-7, 18-9,
18-31, 18-88 18-15, 18-24, 18-31, 18-36, 18-74, 18-75,
Conflict, 16-33,16-38,16-39,18-4,18-11, 18-77, 18-78, 18-79, 18-80, 18-81, 18-85,
18-38,19-9, 19-10,19-11., 19-12,19-28, 19-38, 19-43, 20-20, 20-22, 21-22, 21-28,
20-1, 20-4, 20-5, 20-7, 20-8, 20-9, 20-13, 22-17,22-37, 22-40, 22-46, 23-18, 23-19
20-14, 20-15, 20-18, 20-24, 21-7, 21-19, Degree of saturation, 19-21, 19-28, 21-19
23-19 Degree-of-conflict case, 20-7, 20-8, 20-13,
Conflicting approach, 20-2, 20-4, 20-6, 20-14,20-15
20-7,20-8,20-9,20-11,20-13,20-15, Delayed passing maneuver, 23-13
20-26 Demand, see Demand flow rate;
Conflicting flow rate, 19-9, 19-10, 19-11, Demand starvation; Demand volume
19-12,19-13,19-14, 19-16, 19-22,19-25, Demand flow rate, 17-9, "17-10, 17-34,
19-44, 19-45, 21-4, 21-5, 21-6, 21-8 17-36,17-40,17-50,17-57, 17-58, 17-67,
Conflicting movements, 18-5, 18-10, 17-68,17-74, 17-93, 18-8,18-9, 18-11,
19-5,19-9,19-10, 19-11,19-12,19-13, 18-15, 18-25, 18-34, 18-41, 18-42, 18-49,
.19-28 18-52, 18-53, 18-56, 18-57, 18-66, 18-70,
Congestion, 16-2, 16-8, 16-14, 16-27, "17-2, 18-73, 18-74, 18-79, 18-88, 18-93, 19-2,
17-7, 17-24, 17-26, 18-2, 18-28, 18-75, n
19-9, 19-38, 20-3, 20-9, 2o-2o, 21 -
19-46 21-18, 21-28, 21-34, 22-22,22-25, 22-34
Congestion pricing, 16-27 Demand starvation, 17-6, 18-29, 19-38,
Control condition, 22-47 20-20, 22-10, 22-14, 22-29, 22-30, 22-31,
Control delay, 16-7,17-6,17-9, 18-5, 18-6, 22-32, 22-33, 22-34, 22-60
19-l, 19-2, .19-5, 19-7, 20-2, 20-3, 21 -22, Demand volume, 16-2, 16-3, 16-4, 16-7,
21-28, 22-11, 22-12 17-2, 17-3, 17-6, 17-30, 18-2, 18-3, 18-5,
Conventional diamond interchange, 18-11' 19-9, 19-39, 20-3, 20-9, 20-20,
22-2, 22-36 2·1-2, 21-12, 2.1-22, 21-28, 21 -34, 22-15,
Corridor, 21-11 22-38, 22-56
Crawl speed, 17-4ll Departure headway, 20-2, 20-4, 20-5,
Critical headway, 17-22, 19-2, 19-3, 19-6, 20-6, 20-7, 20-9, 20-12, 20-15, 20-16,
19-7,19-15, 19-16, 19-18,19-31,19-32, 20-17, 20-23, 20-25, 20-26
19-33, 19-34, 19-35, 19-36,.19-40, 19-42, Design hour, 22-46
19-44, 19-45, 19-50,21-9, 21-23 Detection zone, 17-78, 18-18, ·18-23, 18-24
Critical phase, 18-41, 18-42, 18-43, 18-44, Deterministic model, 21-24, 21-26, 22-55
18-45, 18-59 V-factor, 16-26, 16-27
Critical volume-to-capacity ratio, 16-8,
18-41
Volume 3 Index Page V3-2 Volume 3/Interrupted Flow

December 2010
Diamond interchange, '16-28, 19-42,22-2, 22-40, 22-41, 22-42, 22-43, 22-69, 22-70,
22-3, 22-4, 22-7,22-9, 22-11,22-13, 22-71, 22-72
22-29, 22-33, 22-34, 22-36, 22-56, 22-57, Follow-up headway, 19-3, 19-5, 19-6,
22-58 19-7,19-15,19-16,19-18, 19-42, 19-45,
Directional flow rate, 23-10 21-5, 21-23
Directional split, 23-4, 23-7, 23-24 Force-off, 18-21, 18-22
Downstream, 16-10,16-11,17-5, 17-6, Fou r-phase pattern, 20-1, 20-4, 20-5
18-9, 19-:1 ,19-41,20-2,21 -2,21-5,22-1, Free-flow speed, 16-7, 16-8,16-10, 16-11,
22-5, 22-7, 22-9, 16-17,16-18,16-34,16-35, 16-39,16-40,
Dual entry, 18-8, 18-21, 18-76 16-44,16-45, 17-6,17-7, 17-32,17-33,
Duration of congestion, 18-75 17-34, 17-36,17-43,17-74,17-78, 17-83,
Dwell time, 16-32, 17-16,17-17,17-61, 19-27, 19-28
17-62, 17-71, 17-95, 17-96 i"o'reeway, 16-6,18-77,21-5,21-25,22-1,
22-2, 22-3, 22-5, 22-7, 22-16, 22-38,
22-43, 22-47, 22-48, 22-49, 22-50, 22-53,
E 22-54, 22-56, 22-67
Effective green time, 17-37,17-41,17-61, J;ull stop, 16-17,17-40,17-41,17-42,
17-96, 18-1 2, 18-39,18-40, IR-48, 18-55, 17-43
18-72, 18-78, '18-92, 18-93, 18-102, Fully actuated control, 18-1 7, 18-28,
22-31, 22-32,22-34, 22-60, 22-61, 22-66 18-58,18-59,18-86
Effective red time, 18-48, 18-79
Effective walk time, 18-62, 18-64, 18-66,
'18-97 G
Effective walkway width, 23-3, 23-4 Gap, 17-17,17-22, 17-49, 17-52, 17-87,
85th percentile s peed, 16-30, 18-25, 18-8, 18-21, 18-30, 18-39, 18-40, 18-76,
18-26, 18-70, 18-80, .18-97 18-92,19-1, 19-5, 19-6,19-7,19-8, 19-9,
Empirical model, 19-1, 22-17, 22-55 19-10,19-12, 19-'1 6, 19-20,19-21,19-22,
Entrance ramp, 22-56 19-24, 19-25, 19-31, 19-33, 19-34, 19-35,
Entry flow, 21 -4,21-5,21-10,21-13, 19-37, 19-41, 19-42, 19-46,19-51, 19-53,
21-14,21-30,21-31,21 -35,21 -36 21-4,21-7,21-24,21-26
Event, Hl-11, 19-34, 19-35, 20-6, 23-4 Gap acceptance, 19-1, 19-5, 19-12,21-26
Excess wait time, 17-1 6,17-1 7, 17-65, Gap out, 18-21, 18-39
17-66, 17-70, 17-95, 17-98 Generalized service volume table, 16-26,
Exclusive off-street bicycle paths, 23-1 16-27
Exclusive turn lane, 17-4,17-11,18-4, Geometric condition, 16-25, 16-30, 17-71,
18-8, 18-16, 18-24, 18-33 17-72,17-77,17-78, 18-80,19-7,1 9-30,
Exit flow, 17-29, 21-4, 21-10, 21 -29 19-36, 19-39, 20-8, 21-21, 22-15
Exit ramp, 22-3 Geometric delay, 17-39
Green time, 18-38, 18-78, 18-93, 18-102,
22-15, 22-26, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29, 22-30,
F 22-31, 22-32, 22-33, 22-34, 22-57, 22-60,
Facility, 16-5, 16-6, 16-10, 16-18, 16-21, 22-61, 22-63, 22-66
16-23, 16-24, 16-29, 16-35, 16-36, 16-40,
16-41, 16-45, 23-4, 23-24
Fixed-object effective width, 17-47,
H
]7-86, 23-3 Headway, 17-17, 17-22,17-63, 17-64,
Flared approach, 19-3, 19-5, 19-4'1 17-66, 17-97,18-89, lB-105, 19-2, 19-3,
r low rate, 16-2, 16-3,17-2,17-3,18-2, 19-7, 19-15, 19-16, 19-JH, 19-31,19-32,
I8-3, 19-2, 19-9, 19-10, 20-3, 20-5, 21 -4, 19-33, 19-34, 19-35, 19-36, 19-40, 19-44,
21-5,22-9,22-15,22-22, 23-11'), 23-17, 19-45, 19-50, 20-2, 20-4, 20-5, 20-6,
Flow ratio, 18-9, 18-34, lB-41, JB-42, 20-7,20-8, 20-11,20-12,20-14,20-15,
18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 22-36, 22-31;, 22-39, 20-16,20-17,20-23,20-25, 20-26,21-23,
22-55
Volume 3/lnterrupted Flow Page V3-3 Volume 3 Index

December 2010
Highway Capacity Manual 20 I0
Heavy vehicle, 16-31, 17-16, 17-18, 17-58, Lane d istribution, 19-4, 19-10, 19-15,
17-71, 17-90, 17-92, 18-8, 18-10, 18-14, 22-16, 22-55
18-35,18-36,18-76,19-2, 19-15,19-16, Lane group, 16-11, 17-4, 18-4, 18-5,
19-38, 19-43, 20-3, 20-5, 20-11, 20-12, 22-11, 22-12, 22-15
20-20, 20-22, 20-23, 21-2, 21-6,21-8, Lane group delay, 18-56
21-10,21 -12, 21-18,21 -22,21 -23,21 -28, Lane utilization, 18-8, 18-14, 18-15,
21-33, 22-15, 22-37, 22-58, 22-63 18-35, 18-38, 18-76, 18-77, 18-87,21-14,
Hindrance, 23-8 21-15, 21-22, 21-33, 22-1, 22-7, 22-9,
22-10,22-14,22-16,22-17,22-18,22-19,
22-20, 22-21, 22-22, 22-24, 22-32, 22-54,
I 22-55, 22-58, 22-59, 22-64, 22-65
Impedance, 19-6, 19-11,19-13,19-18, Lane width, 17-19,18-8, 18-16,18-27,
19-21,19-2.1, 19-24,19-45,19-46,19-53 18-35, I 8-36, 18-76, 18-80, 18-87, 21-3,
incident, 16-27 22-15, 22-24, 22-59, 22-65
Incremental delay, 18-46, 18-48, 18-49, Level of service (LOS), 16-7, 16-8, 16-9,
18-55, 18-56, 18-72, 18-82, 18-92 17-6,17-7,17-8,18-5,18-6,18-7,19-1,
Influence area, 17-l, 18-1 19-2, 20-1, 20-2, 21-1, 22-11, 22-12,
Initial queue, 16-2, 16-10, 16-11, 17-2, 22-13, 23-2, 23-3, 23-4
17-13,18-2, 18-8,18-14, 18-22,18-46, Link, 17-22,17-45, 17-50,17-51,17-56,
18-49, 18-51, 18-52, 18-53, 18-54, 18-56, 17-57, 17-58, 17-66, 17-87, 17-89, 17-92,
18-57, 18-59, 18-72, 18-74, 18-75, 18-87, 17-94, 17-99, 22-11, 22-26
18-93, 22-30, 22-33 Link length, 17-12, 17-19, 17-33
Initial queue delay, 18-46, 18-49, 18-54, Load factor, 16-32, 17-16, 17-18, 17-65,
18-56, 18-72 17-71, 17-95
Inputs, 17-80,18-17, 18-28, 18-89,19-18, Local street, 16-6, 16-13, 17-24
21-24,22-37,22-46,22-47,23-17,23-19 Loop ramp, 22-4, 22-7
Interchange ramp terminal, 16-16, 16-18, Lost time, 17-37, 17-74, 18-40, 18-41,
16-21, 17-28, 17-45, 17-55, 22-1, 22-2, 18-42, 18-44, 18-45, 18-78, 22-9, 22-14,
22-5, 22-14, 22-15, 22-16, 22-26, 22-32, 22-26, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29,22-30, 22-31,
22-46, 22-53, 22-55 22-32, 22-33, 22-34, 22-58, 22-60, 22-63,
Jntemallink, 22-10, 22-16, 22-17, 22-29, 22-65, 22-66
22-30, 22-32, 22-60, 22-65
Interrup ted flow, 19-38, 20-20
Intersection delay, 17-82, 19-48
M
Interval, 16-1, 16-2, 16-30, 17-2, 17-3, Macroscopic model, 21-26
17-38, 17-77, 17-81, 18-2, 18-13, 18-18, Max out, 18-21, 18-39, 18-58
18-19, 18-20, 18-21, 18-22, 18-39, 18-40, Maximum green, 18-8,1.8-17, 18-18,
18-47, 18-48, 18-51, 18-52, 18-55, 18-62, 18-19, 18-40, 18-55, 18-58, 18-75, 18-76,
18-64, 18-75, 18-76, 18-80, 18-89, 18-96, 18-89, 18-90, 18-92, 18-95
22-15, 22-27, 22-28, 22-29, 22-30, 22-3t Maximum recall, 18-17, 18-18, 18-20
22-32, 22-33, 22-60 Median, 16-36, 16-39, 16-40, 16-41, 16-44,
Isolated intersection, 16-6, 17-6, 18-14, 16-45,17-9, 17-12, 17-16, 17-19,17-32,
18-82, 19-1,20-2 17-33,17-68,17-69,17-70, 17-74,18-20,
18-27,19-2,19-3, 19-12,19-22,19-25,
19-31, 19-49, 19-50
K Meeting, 23-2, 23-4, 23-6, 23-8, 23-9,
K-factor, 16-26 23-12, 23-17, 23-21, 23-22
Merge, 19-9, 19-10, 22-7
Microscopic model, 19-41
L Minimum green, 16-30, 17-77, 18-8,
Lane 1, 20-12,20-13 18-19, 18-20, 18-23, 18-58, 18-76, 22-15
Lane 2, 20-12, 20-13 Minimum recall, 18-20

December 2010
Minor movement, 19-1, 19-5,19-9, 19-16, Passenger load factor, 17-16,17-65,

19-.17, 19-28, 19-30, 19-44, 19-45, 19-49 17-71, 17-95
Mobility, 16-6, 16-7, 16-14, 17-6, 17-25, Passenger trip length, 17-16, 17-17,
23-5,23-1 17-65, 17-66, 17-11, 17-97, 17-98
Model, 16-10,17-13, 17-26, 17-27, 17-32, Pavement condition rating, 17-16, 17-20,
17-38, 17-73, 17-74, 18-22, 18-30, 18-31, 17-58,17-71,17-91
18-81, 18-82, 19-1, 19-5, 19-16, 19-28, Peak hour factor (PHF), 16-2, J 6-3, 16-10,
] 9-36, 19-42, 20-5, 20-6, 20-7, 20-8, 16-11 , 16-26, 16-27, 17-2,17-3, 17-1 0,
20-28,21-2,21 -4, 21-6,21-7,21-16, 17-13,18-3, 18-8, 18-9,18-10,18-11,
21-17, 21 -18, 21 -19,21 -21, 21 -23, 21-24, 18-22, 18-23, 18-76, 18-80, 19-2, 19-9,
21 -25,21 -26,22-17, 22-31,22-55,22-58, 20-3, 20-9, 20-20, 20-21, 21-2, 21-12,
22-64,23-9,23-15,23-21 21-22, 21-23, 21-28, 21 -34, 22-15, 22-58,
Movement capacity, 16-ll, 17-1 5, 17-30, 23-4, 23-5, 23-8, 23-1 0, 23- J 6, 23-17,
17-36,17-43,17-79,18-88, 19-5, 19-18, 23-22, 23-24
19-19,19-20, 19-21,19-22,19-24,19-25, Pedestrian clear interval, 18-19, 18-20,
19-40, 19-45, 19-46 18-27, 18-62, .18-66, 18-99
Movement groups, 17-4, 18-4, 18-15, Pedestrian crosswalk, 17-43, 21-1
18-33, 18-34 Pedestrian flow rate, 17-16,17-18,17-47,
Move-up time, 19-27, 19-47, 20-2, 20-15, 17-48,17-69,17-84,18-8,18-15, 18-25,
20-26 18-26,18-69, 18-74,18-79, 18-96, 18-97,
Multilane roundabout, 21-6, 21-7, 21-9, 19-9, 19-32, 21-30, 22-15, 23-2, 23-5,
21 -15, 21 -28 23-20, 23-24
Multimodal, 16-1, 16-3, 16-4, 16-5, 16-29, Pedestrian mode, 18-60, 18-79, 19-30,
16-47, 17-3, 17-46, 17-56, 17-100, 21-21
18-106, 23-28 Pedestrian plaza, 23-6, 23-18, 23-19
Pedestrian recall, 18-20
Pedestrian service time, 18-67, 18-99,
N 18-100
Near-side stop, 17-61,17-62,17-96 Pedestrian space, 16-3, 16-8, 16-12, 16-19,
Node, 22-55 16-20, 16-21 , 16-34, 16-35, 16-38, 16-39,
16-40, 16-43, 16-44, 16-45, 17-3, 17-8,
17-45, •t7-46, 17-47,17-49,17-51,17-54,
0 17-85, 17-86, 17-89, 17-90, 18-97, 23-2,
Off-line bus stop, 17-23 23-5, 23-6, 23-7, 23-23
Off-ramp, 22-43 Pedestrian start-up time, 19-32, 19-38,
Offset, 16-30, 17-37, 17-77, 17-81, 18-8, 19-49
18-22, 18-78, 22-15, 22-57, 22-63, 23-21 Pedestrian street, 23-2, 23-5, 23-6
Off-street path, 23-4, 23-5, 23-3, 23-7, Pedestrian walkway, 23-1 9, 23-20, 23-23
23-18 Performance measure, 16-3, 16-6, 16-7,
On-ramp, 18-77 17-3,17-5,17-6, 18-3, 18-5, 18-7,19-41,
Opposing approach, 18-48, 18-91, 20-2, 21-4, 22-13, 22-33, 22-46
20-4, 20-7, 20-8,20-9, 20-12 Permitted tum, 18-46
Output">, 17-73, 19-39, 20-20, 21 -22, Phase, 16-30,17-6, 17-28, 17-37, 17-38,
22-46,22-54,23-18,23-19 17-39,17-77,17-79,17-80,17-81,17-96,
Overflow queue, 17-40, 18-48, 18-54, 18-4, 18-5, 18-7, 20-1, 20-4,20-5, 20-18,
18-93 20-19, 22-JS, 22-26,22-28,
Phase pair, 18-42
p Phase pattern, 20-4
Phase recall, 18-8, 18-76, 22-15
Partial diamond interchange, 22-4 Phase sequence, 17-77,17-80,18-8, 18-18,
Passage time, 16-30, 17-77, 18-8, 18-18, 18-21, 18-42, 18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 18-58,
18-24, 18-30, 18-55, 18-58, 18-76,22-15 18-75, 18-78, 18-82, 18-87, 18-88, 18-89,
Passenger-car equivalent, 21-17,21-18 18-92, 20-18, 22-15

December 2010
l'latoon, 16-5, 16-6,16-19, 16-31,16-35, Receiving lanes, 18-8, 18-17, 18-39, 18-74,
16-39, 16-44,17-4,17-31, 17-37, 17-38, 20-8
17-46, 17-74,17-78,17-79,17-82,17-86, Recreational vehicle, 16-14, 17-24, 18-29
18-1,18-8,18-11,18-12, 18-13, 18-48, Red clearance interval, 17-81, 18-19,
18-67,18-75, 18-76, 18-86,19-5,19-17, 18-20, 18-21, 18-39, 18-40, 18-62, 18-64,
19-18, 19-32, 23-3, 23-6, 23-7 18-89, 18-96
Platoon ratio, 16-31,17-78, 17-79,18-8, Reentry delay, 17-16,17-22,17-23, 17-60,
18-11,18-12,18-13,18-48, 18-75, 18-76, 17-62, 17-70,17-95,17-96
18-86 Reference phase, 16-30, 17-77, 18-22,
Potential capacity, 19-5,19-16,19-17, 18-78
19-18,19-19,19-45, 19-46 Regression model, 21-4,21 -5,22-43,23-9,
Precision, 16-25, 17-72, 18-81 23-17
Prepositioning, 18-15, 22-41, 22-70 Residual queue, 16-2, 16-10,16-11,17-2,
Pretimed control, 18-18, 18-28, 18-31, 17-13,18-2,18-23, 18-49,18-58, 18-59,
18-39, 18-42, 18-43, 18-45, 18-75 11P5, 18-93,21-19
Progression, 16-8, 16-31, 17-7, 17-73, Rest-in-walk mode, 18-20, 18-27, 18-30,
17-78, 18-5, 18-6,18-11, 18-12,18-13, '18-97
18-14, 18-59, 18-76,18-77, 18-78, '18-82, Restrictive median, 16-26, 16-27, 17-9,
18-92, '18-106, 21 -27 17-12,17-33,17-68
Protected tum, 22-24, 22-25 Right-tum-on-red, 16-31, 17-75, 18-8,
18-9, 18-25, 18-66, 18-76, 22-15,22-43
Ring, 17-80, 18-4, 18-5, 18-21, 18-42,
Q 18-43, 18-44, 18-45, 18-88
Quality of service, 16-1, 16-3, 16-4, 16-8, Roundabout, 16-13,16-16,16-18, 16-21,
16-9,16-14,17-1,17-3, 17-7, 17-8, 16-26, 17-16, 17-23, 17-24, 17-28,17-39,
17-17, 17-25, 17-51, 18-1, 18-7, 18-29, 17-45, 17-55, 17-61, 17-70, 17-75,21-1,
20-3, 21-1,23-1, 23-5,23-1,23-17 22-1, 22-5, 22-9, 22-34, 22-35
Queue, see Back of queue; lnitial queue; Running speed, 16-1 7,16-22,16-23,
Overflow queue; Queue delay; Queue 17-13,17-14,17-16,17-22,17-32, 17-34,
jump; Queue length; Queue spillback; 17-37,17-51, 17-56,17-57,17-58,17-60,
Queue storage ratio; Residual queue 17-61, 17-62, 17-63, 17-69, 17-70, 17-73,
Queue delay, 18-54, 19-42 17-85,17-88, 17-91,17-92,17-95,18-23
Queue jump, 17-23 Running time, 16-7,16-11,16-13,17-6,
Queue length, 19-5, 19-7, 19-25, 19-26, 17-15, 17-22,17-32,17-34,17-36,17-38,
19-30, 19-39, 19-40, 19-48, 19-49, 20-17, 1.7-42, 17-57, 17-60, 17-62, 17-63, 17-83,
20-26, 21-20, 21 -33, 22-28, 22-33, 22-54, 17-91, 17-95, 17-97
22-60, 22-66 Ru ral, 18-57,20-17,21 -21,22-2
Queue spillback, 16-10, 16-14, 17-13,
17-24, 18-22, 18-28, 18-30, 19-38, 20-20,
22-32
s
Queue storage ratio, 18-3, 18-57, 1H-93, Saturation flow rate, 16-26, 16-27, 16-31,
22-12, 22-15, 22-33, 22-44, 22-53, 22-54, 17-41, 17-73, 17-74, 17-78, 17-79, 17-81,
22-57, 22-58, 22-61, 22-62, 22-63, 22-66, 18-8, 18-14, 18-15, 18-35, 18-36, 18-38,
22-67 18-40, 18-42, 18-46, 18-47, 18-48, 18-71,
18-76, 18-81, 18-83, 18-87, 18-88, 18-90,
18-91, 18-93, 18-102, 19-7, 19-21, 19-38,
R 21-5,22-15,22-16,22-18,22-24,22-25,
Ramp meter, 21-25, 22-1, 22-53, 22-56 22-34, 22-37, 22-38, 22-39, 22-53, 22-55,
Ramp roadway, 22-36, 22-40, 22-43 22-59, 22-64, 22-67, 22-69
Rank, 19-7, 19-8, 19-9, 19-10, 19-11, Saturation headway, 18-24, 20-1, 20-2,
19-12, 19-13, 19-17, 19-18, 19-19, 19-20, 20-3, 20-6, 20-7, 20-8, 20-9, 20-11,
19-21, 19-22, 19-23, 19-24, 19-28, 19-29, 20-14,20-15,20-23,20-25,22-29,22-30,
19-30, 19-45, 19-46, 19-47, 19-48 22-33, 22-55

December 2010
Scenario, 16-40,17-83, 18-59,19-12, Speed, see Average ru nning speed;

19-35,19-49, 19-50, 19-51, 19-52, 20-18 Average travel speed; Bicycle speed;
Segment, 16-5, 16-6,16-8, 17-3, 17-4, 17-5 Crawl s peed; 85th percentile speed;
Segment delay, 18-82,19-41 Free-flow speed; Running speed
Semiactuated control, 18-17, 18-75 Spillback, 16-1 0, 17-13, 17-29,17-31,
Sensitivity analysis, 21-20 17-32, 17-83, 18-22, 18-30, 22-1, 22-5,
Service mctlsure, ] 9-31, 19-36, 21-1, 23-2, 22-32, 22-53
23-6, 23-7 Spillover, 23-5, 23-4, 23-19
Service time, 17-23, 17-62, 17-96, 18-9, Split, 17-80, 17-81, 18-12, 18-18, 18-20,
18-34, 18-40, 18-67, 18-92, 20-2, 20-6, 18-21, 18-22, 18-78,18-88, 18-91, 22-3,
20-7,20-8, 20-9,20-12,20-15,20-16, 22-4, 22-43, 23-4, 23-9, 23-10, 23-18,
20-26 23-24
Service volume, 16-26, 16-27, 23-4, 23-19 Stairway, 23-2, 23-4, 23-5, 23-7, 23-21
see also Generalized service volume Start- up lost time, 17-36, 17-37, 18-7,
table 18-40, 18-45, 18-&.1, 18-89, 22-31, 22-55,
Shared lane, 16-10, 17-9, 17-11, 17-40, 22-58, 22-63
17-79, 17-83, 18-8, 18-9, 18-12, 18-16, Stochastic model, 21-24, 21 -26
18-33,18-34, 18-38, 18-48, 18-51,18-52, Stop rate, 16-3,16-17,16-18, 17-3,17-14,
'18-88, 18-90, 18-91,18-92, 19-5, 19-20, 17-28, 17-40, 17-41, 17-43, 17-80
19-21, 19-25,19-27, '19-28, 19-29, 19-39, Stop s pacing, 17-18
22-38 Stopped delay, 19-27, 19-47
Shared-lane capacity, 19-19, 19-25, 19-47, Storage length, 17-11, 18-'17, 18-93, 22-60,
19-49 22-65
Shoulder, 16-6, 17-1 6,17-19,1 7-20, 17-50, Street corner, 18-63, 18-97
17-51,17-58, 17-71 , 17-84, 17-87, 17-88, Study period, 16-1, 16-2,16-3, 17-1, 17-2,
1.7-91,17-92, 18-] 6, 18-25,18-27,18-71, 17-3, 18-1, 18-2, 18-3, 18-9, 18-25
18-73, 18-80, 18-103 Subject approach, 17-56,18-13,18-15,
Shy distance, J 7-47, 17-48, 17-85, 23-3, 18-27, 18-34, 18-37, 18-56, 18-73, 18-91,
23-4 19-12, 20-1, 20-4, 20-5, 20-7, 20-8,
Side street, 18-13, 18-14 20-'15, 20-26, 22-17
Sidepath, 23-1 Suburban street, 16-1, 17-1
Sidewalk, 16-5,16-8,16-9,16-12, 16-14, Sustained spillback, 17-32
16-19,16-20, J6-21, 16-29, 16-:12, 16-34, System elements, 18-60, 23-4
16-35,16-36, 16-39, 16-40, 16-41, 16-44,
16-45,17-4,17-7,17-8, 17-1 6, 17-20,
17-21, 17-25, 17-26,17-44, 17-46, 17-47,
T
17-48, 17-50, 17-51, 17-52, 17-55,17-84, Three-level diamond interchange, 22-4
17-85, 17-86, 17-88, 18-27, 18-28, 18-29, Through vehicles, 16-7, 16-17, 16-29,
18-30, 18-63, 18-65, 18-66, 23-3, 23-4, 17-6, 17-11, 17-12,17-14, 17-15, 17-26,
23-20 17-31, 17-35,17-39,17-40,17-42, 17-43,
Single entry, 18-21 , 18-76,21-6 17-56, 17-82, 17-83, 18-30, 18-90, 18-92,
Single-point urban interchange, 16-28, 18-93, 18-95, 19-1, 19-7, 19-28, 19-29
22-1 Tigh t urban diamond interchange, 22-2,
Single-stage gap acceptance, 19-12 22-36
Space, !'.ee Pedestrian s pace Time interval, 16-1, 16-10, 17-2, 17-13,
Spacing, 16-7,16-11, 16-27, 16-35, 16-36, 18-2, 18-22, 18-47, 19-7
17-16,1 7-20,17-32, 17-33, 17-34, 17-51, Tool, 16-1 0, 17-1,17-13,17-32,17-72,
17-68, 17-69, 18-77, 22-2, 22-9, 22-29, 17-73, 17-74, 18-·1, 18-22, 18-81,18-82,
22-37, 23-4, 2.1-21 18-83, 18-84, 19-41, 19-42, 21-20, 21-23,
Spatial stop rate, 16-17, '16-18, '17-42, 21-24, 21-26, 21-27,22-2, 22-53, 22-55,
17-44, '17-76 22-56
Special events, 23-19 Total lost time, 22-60, 22-66

December 2010
Traffic analysis tool, 17-72, 18-81, 21-23, Unsignalized intersection, 17-5, 17-40,
22-53 17-44, 19-2, 19-30, 19-41, 19-42, 21-1,
Traffic condition, 16-1, 16-2, 16-13, 16-25, 21-4, 21-7, 21-18, 22-14, 22-36
17-1,17-2,17-24,17-25,17-29,17-71, Urban street segment, 16-5, 17-1, 17-3,
18-1, 18-2, 18-26, 18-28, 18-29, 18-35, 17-6
18-80, 19-36,20-1,21-21, 22-15,22-24
Traffic control device, 17-5, 17-32, 17-34,
17-60,21-2,21 -25
v
Traffic pressure, 22-24, 22-25, 22-59, Validation, 22-73
22-64, 22-65 Variability, 17-39
Transit frequency, 16-32, 17-16,17-18, Volume-to-capacity (vic) ratio, 19-40,
17-64, 17-70, 17-95 20-2, 23-2, 23-7
Transit mode, 16-7, 16-9,16-13,16-30,
16-36, 16-41,. 17-6, 17-8, 17-24
Transit reliability, 17-17
w
Travel mode, 16-1,16-3, 16-4,16-5,16-6, Walk intervat 18-19, 18-20, 18-100
16-8, 16-12, 16-14, 16-16, 16-32, 16-37, Walkway, 16-12,16-36,16-41, 17-16,
16-42, 17-1, 17-3, 17-8, 17-16, 17-24, 17-20, 17-47, 17-71,18-25,18-27, 18-63,
17-27, 18-1, 18-3, 18-7, 18-24, 18-28, 18-80, 18-97, 23-2, 23-3, 23-4, 23-5,
I 8-29, I 8-31 23-3, 23-4, 23-6, 23-7, 23-19, 23-20,
Travel speed, see Average t ravel speed 23-23
Travel time, 16-11,16-12,16-13,16-17,
16-20, 16-22,16-23,17-17,17-39,17-61,
17-63,17-64, 17-65,17-66, 17-74,17-97,
17-98, 18-5,18-78, 18-82, 20-8,20-16,
22-2, 22-40, 22-54, 22-69, 23-11
Travel time rate, 17-63, 17-64, 17-65,
17-66, 17-98
Truck, 16-14, 17-24, 18-29, 23-4
Two-lane highway, 23-1
Two-phase pattern, 20-4
Two-stage gap acceptance, 19-5, 19-41,
19-44
Two-way left-tum lane, 17-11,17-19,
18-17, 19-2
Two-way STOP-controlled, 16-13, 16-18,
16-21, 16-26, 17-5, 17-23, 17-24, 17-28,
17-44, 17-55, 17-61, 17-75, 19-1,21-4,
22-1,22-13,22-56
u
Uncontrolled, 16-11,17-5,17-15,17-23,
17-36, 17-39,17-40, 17-49, 17-52, 17-56,
17-84, 18-30, 19-1, 22-43
Uniform delay, 18-46, 18-47, 18-5t
18-52, 18-53, 18-56, 18-82, 18-9t 18-92,
18-93
Unit extension, 18-18
Unmet demand, 18-49, 18-51, 18-52,
JS-53, 18-54, 18-56

December 2010

Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Chapter 23 - OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Highway Capacity Manual 20 I 0

2. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 23-7

3. APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 23-24

4. EXAMPLE PROBLEMS....................................................................................... 23-28

5. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 23-34

Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-i Contents

Contents Page 23-ii Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Chapter 23/0tf-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-1 Introduction

Introduction Page 23-2 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Average B~lated f!Jeasu~~ Exhibit 23-1

Related Exhibit 23-2

Average Related Measuru Exhibit 23-3

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23·3 Introduction

Pedestrians on Shared-Use Paths

Exhibit 23-4 Weighted Related Measure

Exclusive and Shared Bicycle Facilities

Exhibit 23-5 ~L~O~S~_~B~icycleLOSSoo~re~.-~c=o~m~m ~e~n~ts=-~----

REQUIRED INPUT DATA

Exhibit 23-6 Pedestrian/Bicycle Fac::.:il=-=ity'"----=-=

SCOPE OF THE METHODOLOGY

Introduction Page 23-4 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY

Exclusive Bicycle Facilities

Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-5 Introduction

Introduction Page 23-6 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

I Step 1: Determine the effective walkway width I Exhibit 23-7

I Step 3: Calculate the average pedestrian space I

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-7 Methodology

Bicycle LOS on exclusive and shared-use off-stn:.-et bicycle facilities is based

Methodology Page 23-8 Chapter 2310ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

EXCLUSIVE OFF-STREET PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES

Step 1: Determine Effective Walkway Width

Walkways and Cross-Flow Areas

The concept of effective width applies

The street is shown so that all factors

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23·9 Methodology

Exhibit 23-11 Fixed Object - :-=----,,-----=E::..:JJ:.ect

Methodology Page 23-10 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Step 2: Calculate Pedestrian Flow Rate

Walkways and Cross-Flow Areas

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fadlities Page 23-11 Methodology

Step 3: Calculate Ave rage Pedestrian Space

Step 4: Determine LOS

Walkways with Random Pedestrian Flow

Walkways with Platoon Flow

Methodology Page 23-12 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Step 5: Calculate Volume-to-Capacity Ratio

Step 1: Gather Input Data

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Fadlities Page 23-13 Methodology

Step 2: Calculate Number of Bicycle Passing and Meeting Events

Methodology Page 23-14 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

F = (FP+0.5 F"' ) Equation 23-7

Step 3: Determine LOS

OFF-STREET BICYCLE FACILITIES

Step 1: Gather Input Data

Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-15 Methodology

• Path width in feet, and

Step 2: Calculate Active Passings per Minute

Methodology Page 23-16 Chapter 23/0ff-Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Since v, is distributed normally, the probability in Equation 23-9 can be

Step 3: Calculate Meetings per Minute

Chapter 23/0ff·Street Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Page 23-17 Methodology