Modeling Pedestrian Delays at Signalized
Intersections as a Function of Crossing
Directions and Moving Paths
Jing Zhao and Yue Liu
Pedestrian delay is a key performance indicator for evaluating the level
of service for pedestrians at signalized intersections. Although much is
known about the pedestrian delay of a signalized crosswalk, the existing
model in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 cannot provide the necessary
accuracy for estimating the pedestrian delay of the diagonal crossing
(crossing to the diagonally opposite corner of the intersection in two
stages) and the entire intersection. In this paper, a new pedestrian con-
trol delay model is proposed: the model considers the diagonal crossing
and moving paths. The proposed model is validated on the basis of
field measurements. The main factors affecting the pedestrian control
delay during diagonal crossing are discussed. Results reveal that the
proposed model is promising in increasing the estimation accuracy of
the pedestrian control delay of the diagonal crossing and the entire
intersection (approximately 20%). The delay of the diagonal crossing
increases with an increase in the time gap of the green light between
the two adjacent crosswalks and an increase in the green time length
of the crosswalk.
Pedestrian delay is a key performance indicator needed to evaluate
the level of service for pedestrians at signalized intersections (1).
In traffic engineering, the signal control design of the intersection
achieves two principal objectives: one is to ensure the safety of all
users of the intersection, and the other is to promote the efficient move-
ment of all users through the intersection (2). The pedestrian delay is
closely related to the above two objectives. With regard to traffic
efficiency, the pedestrian delay is used in many optimization models
of signal control that aim to balance the trade-off between pedes-
trians and vehicles by minimizing the delay for both traffic modes
(3–10). With regard to traffic safety, previous research has shown
that pedestrians will most likely cross on red for delays exceed-
ing 30 s and most likely wait for green when the delay is less than
10 s (11–13).
Analysis of pedestrian delays has been a concern for traffic engi-
neers for a long time. One commonly used pedestrian delay model—
developed by Pretty (14)—is presented in the Highway Capacity
Manual (HCM) (15). It is a function of the ratio of the length of the
pedestrian effective green time and the length of the signal cycle for
J. Zhao, Department of Traffic Engineering, University of Shanghai for Science and
Technology, 516 Jungong Road, Shanghai 200093, China. Y. Liu, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee, P.O. Box 784, Milwaukee, WI 53201. Corresponding author: J. Zhao,
jing_zhao_traffic@163.com.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2615, 2017, pp. 95–104.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2615-11
95
one-stage crossings based on uniform arrival rates. Many researchers
have modified this classic delay calculation model to enhance its
accuracy. Some factors that were considered include the following:
1. Influence of pedestrian–vehicle conflict. Even though motorists
are legally required to yield to pedestrians at crosswalks under most
circumstances, actual motorist yielding behavior varies considerably
and is influenced by many factors, such as the pedestrian crossing
treatments and roadway geometries (16, 17). Therefore, a pedes-
trian delay model considering pedestrian–vehicle interaction was
proposed on the basis of field surveys conducted in metropolitan
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia (18). The pedestrian delay is
considered in two parts: (a) the delay of pedestrians arriving during a
vehicular bunch and (b) the delay of those arriving during the random
flow between bunches. These two parts are considered in combination
to obtain the overall delay.
2. Influence of pedestrians’ arrival rate. Griffiths et al. proposed
an upgraded model of delay estimation considering the duration of
each signal phase and the number of pedestrians that arrived at each
phase of the cycle (19). Thus, the irregularity of the entry process was
described. Chilukuri and Virkler pointed out that the nonuniformity of
pedestrians’ arrival rate may be the result of the signal coordination of
two adjacent intersections (20). The validation results indicated that
delay calculations for signalized intersections in coordinated systems
should recognize the effect of signal coordination. Kruszyna et al.
further established three new delay estimation models based on field
measurements (21). These models differ in complexity, accuracy, and
concurrence.
3. Influence of signal noncompliance. Three pedestrian indica-
tions are normally encountered: “Walk” (pedestrian effective green
time), flashing “Don’t Walk” (pedestrian clearance time), and solid
“Don’t Walk” (pedestrian red time). Theoretically, all pedestrians
who arrive during the pedestrian clearance and red intervals should
wait until the beginning of the pedestrian green light. However, as
aforementioned, pedestrians may decide to cross on the red light in
instances of long waiting times. Virkler found that most delay reduc-
tions were the result of pedestrians who entered crosswalks during
clearance phases, according to data collected in the central business
district area of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia (22). Li et al. further
developed a pedestrian delay model with adequate consideration of
signal noncompliance during the effective red phases that was based
on a field study conducted in Xi’an, China (23). Similar conditions
were also found in Indian cities. A pedestrian delay model was devel-
oped by combining the consideration of the nonuniform arrival rate
and signal noncompliance behavior (24). This combined model was
also calibrated with data collected in Nanjing, China (25).
96 Transportation Research Record 2615

4. Influence of two-stage crossing design. The pedestrian delay of
a signalized two-stage crossing should not be calculated by simply
adding up the delays from the two stages, because they are inde-
pendent. Pedestrian arrivals at the second-stage crossing will be
affected by the signal timing of the first-stage crossing. Wang and
Tian developed an improved pedestrian delay model for signalized
intersections with a two-stage crossing design (26). The model was
validated with a microscopic simulation under a wide range of traffic
scenarios.
5. Influence of bidirectional pedestrian flow. Researchers found
that pedestrian walking speed may be reduced when the opposing
pedestrian flow is high (27). A sophisticated pedestrian simulation
model was then developed to estimate pedestrian walking times
and delays, particularly for environments with a heavy opposing
pedestrian flow (28). It was validated with survey data. Results
showed that the new pedestrian simulation model can provide an
accurate evaluation of the changes in walking speed under different
scenarios with particular emphasis on the effects of bidirectional
pedestrian flows.
pedestrian delay, whereas the time spent walking in the crosswalk is
not counted because the pedestrian would have needed to cross the
street no matter what, which involves the walking time.
As shown in Figure 1, pedestrian crossing directions could be
divided into two types, namely, the straight crossing and the diagonal
crossing directions. The latter contains two moving paths, that is, the
clockwise and the anticlockwise paths. The overall computational
procedure of the pedestrian control delay of the intersection is shown
in Figure 2. In the following, the pedestrian control delays of the dif-
ferent crossing directions and moving paths will be discussed sepa-
rately. The pedestrian control delay model of the overall intersection
will be established at the end of this section.
Pedestrian Control Delay Model
for Straight Crossing
The pedestrian control delay of the straight direction could be
determined by the HCM 2010 formula given by

Although much is known about the pedestrian delay of the signal- ( c − g j )2

d(Ti,i ′) = (1)
ized crosswalk, one may wonder how to estimate the average pedes- 2C
trian delay of the overall signalized intersection. Can one calculate the
average intersection pedestrian delay by taking a weighted average where
of the crosswalk pedestrian delays? The walking direction of a pedes-
i and i′ = indexes of intersection corners, as shown in Figure 3
trian at intersections can be either a straight crossing or a diagonal
(i = 1 for northeast corner, i = 2 for southeast corner,
crossing (crossing to the diagonally opposite corner of the intersection
i = 3 for southwest corner, and i = 4 for northwest
in two stages). The existing pedestrian delay models focus mainly on
corner);
the straight crossing and regard the diagonal crossing as two separate
T = set of straight crossing directions (i, i′) ∈ T, as shown
straight crossings. However, that approach is not accurate. The reasons
in Figure 3;
justifying the inaccuracy include the following:
j = (i, i′) = index of crosswalks [( j = 1 for crosswalk at
east leg, j = 2 for crosswalk at south leg, j = 3 for cross-
1. The delay of the diagonal crossing should not be seen simply as
walk at west leg, and j = 4 for crosswalk at north leg);
the sum of the two straight crossings because there are two moving
it is also defined that crosswalk j is left-hand cross-
paths for the pedestrians crossing diagonally. Pedestrians could first
walk for corner i and crosswalk ( j − 1) is right-hand
choose the path that meets the green signal requirements. Therefore,
crosswalk for corner i];
the moving path choice is not random as the existing models have thus
d T(i,i′) = average pedestrian control delay of straight direction
far assumed.
(i, i′) ∈ T (s);
2. Moreover, the pedestrian arrival pattern of the second crosswalk
C = cycle length (s); and
will be affected by the length and signal timing of the first crosswalk.
gj = length of effective green time for crosswalk j (s).
It will also affect the delay of the diagonal crossing.

To remedy this deficiency, this paper aims to develop a pedestrian

Diagonal crossing direction
control delay model in which the diagonal crossing and the mov-
ing path are considered to enhance the estimation accuracy of the
pedestrian delay at signalized intersections.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The detailed model
formulation and the computational procedure are described next,
followed by the validation of the proposed model on the basis of field
Anticlockwise path
data. The effect factors of the proposed model are then discussed, Straight crossing
and conclusions and recommendations close the paper. direction

Clockwise path
Model Formulation

In this section, the pedestrian control delay model is established as

a function of the crossing directions and moving paths. Considering
that this paper is discussed on the basis of the HCM’s methodology,
the delay defined in the HCM is used; movements at slower speeds
and stops at the intersection are included. Therefore, the time spent FIGURE 1   Concept of pedestrian crossing directions and
waiting on the intersection corner for a walk signal is counted in the moving paths.
Zhao and Liu 97

Distribution of left-hand
Distribution of pedestrian volume
and right-hand crosswalk
Equations 2 and 4
effective green time

Control delay for one pedestrian

Impact of arrival time
Equations 6 and 7

Average control delay along clockwise

Impact of crossing directions
and anticlockwise paths
and moving paths
Equations 10 and 11

Pedestrian control delay of Pedestrian control delay of diagonal

Impact of signal timing straight crossing crossing
Equation 1 Equation 14

Pedestrian control delay of entire

intersection
Equation 15

FIGURE 2   Computational procedure of pedestrian control delay of intersection.

Pedestrian Control Delay Model e

for Diagonal Crossing
Pedestrians crossing diagonally have two moving path options, either
a clockwise path or an anticlockwise path, as shown in Figure 1.
A three-step procedure is used to compute the pedestrian control delay
for a diagonal crossing: (a) the distribution of the pedestrian volume
between the two moving paths is determined, which is affected mainly
by the signal timing; (b) the control delay for one pedestrian arriv-
ing at time t is calculated by considering the signal timing relation-
ship of the two crosswalks along the moving path, the length of the
crosswalks, and the walking speed of pedestrians; and (c) the average
control delay for the diagonal crossing is determined by combining
the above two steps.
right-hand crosswalk G (j−1) and the end of the effective green of the
left-hand crosswalk Gej will choose the clockwise path (see the bold
blue line in Figure 4) because the green signal will appear at the left-
hand crosswalk first. Along the same line, pedestrians arriving during
the end of the effective green of the right-hand crosswalk G ej and
e
the end of the effective green of the left-hand crosswalk G (j−1) will
choose the anticlockwise path (see the dotted blue line in Figure 4).
Assuming that arrivals are uniform, the proportion of the pedestrian
volume of the clockwise and anticlockwise paths could be determined
with Equations 2 and 4, respectively.
Ti1
Pi1 = (2)
C
G j − G( j −1) if G ej ≥ G(ej −1)
e e

Ti1 =  (3)
G j − G( j −1) + C if G ej < G(ej −1)
e e
Distribution of Pedestrian Volume

According to the walking delay minimization principle, the pedes- Ti 2

Pi 2 = (4)
trians arriving at corner i during the end of the effective green of the C

Right-hand crosswalk for Corner 1

i=4 j=4 Corner i = 1

Lj
Straight crossing Left-hand crosswalk
direction (i, i' ) = (3, 4) ´T First crosswalk for Corner 1
for crossing
direction (1, 3)
Crosswalk
j=3 Second crosswalk j=1
for crossing
direction (1, 3)

i=3 i=2
Diagonal crossing
direction (i, i" ) = (1, 3) ´D j=2

FIGURE 3   Schematic layout indicating geometric parameters.

98 Transportation Research Record 2615

Corner i"

Clockwise Path
Corner i + 1
G b(j+1) G e(j+1)

Corner i
G bj G ej G b(j–1) G e(j–1) Time
Ti1 Ti2
Anticlockwise Path

C
Corner i – 1
G b(j–2) G e(j–2)

Corner i"

FIGURE 4   Schematic layout indicating signal timing parameters.

G( j −1) − G j if G(ej −1) ≥ G ej

e e
G bj = start of effective green for crosswalk j (s);
Ti 2 =  (5) Lj = length of crosswalk j (m), as shown in Figure 3; and
G( j −1) − G j + C if G(ej −1) < G ej
e e
v = walking speed of pedestrian (m/s).

where Similarly, any pedestrian crossing diagonally who is traveling along

the anticlockwise path will always receive the green signal at the sec-
Pi1 = proportion between pedestrian volume on clock- b
ond crosswalk at time G (j−2). Therefore, the pedestrian’s control delay
wise path and total volume of pedestrians crossing could be calculated by
diagonally;
Pi2 = proportion between pedestrian volume on anticlock- L( j −1)
wise path and total volume of pedestrians crossing d(Di,i2′′) ( t ) = G(bj − 2) − t − ∀t ∈[G ej , G(ej −1) ] (7)
v
diagonally;
Ti1 and Ti2 = assigned time durations of clockwise and anticlock- D2
where d (i,i″)(t) is the control delay of the pedestrian who is traveling
wise paths chosen by pedestrians, respectively (s),
from corner i to corner i″ along the anticlockwise path and arriving
as shown in Figure 4; and
at the intersection at time t (s).
G ej = end of effective green for crosswalk j (s).

Average Control Delay for Diagonal Crossing

Control Delay for One Pedestrian
Assuming that arrivals are uniform, the average pedestrian control
Any pedestrian traveling diagonally from corner i to corner i″ along
the clockwise path receives the green signal first at the left-hand delay of the diagonal direction along the clockwise and anticlockwise
crosswalk, as shown in Figure 3. Moreover, after crossing the first paths could be determined with Equations 8 and 9, respectively.
crosswalk, the pedestrian will always receive the green signal at the Ti 1
second crosswalk at time G b(j+1), no matter when he or she arrives at 1
d(Di,i1′′) = ∫ d( ( t ) dt
D1
i,i ′′ ) (8)
the intersection, as shown in Figure 4. Therefore, the control delay Ti1 0
of the pedestrian who is traveling along the clockwise path can be
calculated by Ti 2
1
d(Di,i2′′) = ∫ d( ( t ) dt
D2
i,i ′′ ) (9)
Lj Ti 2
d(Di,i1′′) ( t ) = G(bj +1) − t − ∀t ∈[G e
( j −1) ,G e
j ] (6) 0
v
D1
where d(i,i″) is the average pedestrian control delay of the diagonal
where D2
direction along the clockwise path (s) and d(i,i″) is the average pedes-
D = set of diagonal crossing direction (i, i″) ∈ D, as shown trian control delay of the diagonal direction along the anticlockwise
in Figure 3; path (s).
t = arrival time of pedestrian (s); Substitution of Equations 3 and 5 in Equations 8 and 9, respectively,
D1
d (i,i″) (t) = control delay of pedestrian traveling from corner i to allows direct calculation of the average pedestrian control delay of
corner i″ (i, i″) ∈ D along clockwise path who is arriving the diagonal direction along the clockwise and anticlockwise paths
at intersection at time t (s); with Equations 10 and 11, respectively.
Zhao and Liu 99

Lj
d(Di,i1′′) = T (Di,1i ′′) − (10)
v Corner 4

L( j −1) Corner 3
d(Di,i2′′) = T (Di,i2′′) − (11)
v
D1
where T (i,i″) is the time period from the middle of the time period
b D2
Ti1 to G (j+1) (s), which can be calculated with Equation 12, and T (i,i″)
b
is the time period from the middle of the time period Ti2 to G (j−2) (s), Corner 1
which can be calculated with Equation 13.
Corner 2
 b G ej + G(ej −1)
G( j +1) − 2
if G(bj +1) ≥ G ej ≥ G(ej −1)
 (a)
 G j + G(ej −1) − C
e

T (Di,1i ′′) = G(bj +1) − if G < G

e
j
e
( j −1) (12)
 2
 G + G(ej −1)
e
G(bj +1) − j +C if G ej ≥ G(ej −1) ≥ G(bj +1)
 2 Corner 1

Corner 4
 b G ej + G(ej −1)
G( j − 2) − ≥G ≥G
b e e
if G ( j − 2) ( j −1) j
2
 Corner 3
 Corner 2
 G j + G(ej −1) − C
e

T (Di,i2′′) = G(bj − 2) − if G e
( j −1) <G e
j (13)
 2
 G + G(ej −1)
e
G(bj − 2) − j +C if G(ej −1) ≥ G ej ≥ G(bj − 2)
 2
(b)
Therefore, the average pedestrian control delay of the diagonal
direction could be calculated by estimating the weighted average FIGURE 5   Video camera views of survey intersections:
of the delay of the clockwise and anticlockwise paths, as shown in (a) Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road and
Equation 14. (b) Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road.

Ti1 D1 Ti 2 D 2
d(Di,i ′′) = d(i,i ′′) + d(i,i ′′) (14)
C C in Figure 5. The cameras were mounted on the top of buildings near
the two intersections to ensure that the overall intersection was cov-
where d D(i,i″) is the average pedestrian control delay of the diagonal ered. The video cameras readily captured pedestrian arrivals during
direction (s). successive 1-s intervals, and moving paths, for later analyses of the
delay. The video-based data collection was performed from 7:30 to
9:30 and from 16:30 to 18:30 for three consecutive days. The length
Pedestrian Control Delay of the Intersection of each crosswalk and signal timings are shown in Table 1. In total,
The pedestrian control delay of the intersection could be determined
with Equation 15 with the combination of the pedestrian control
delay models for straight and diagonal crossings. TABLE 1   Crosswalk Length and Signal Timings

Cycle Start of Duration End of

∑ q( )d(
( )
i,i ′
T
i,i ′ ) + ∑ q(
( )
d D
i,i ′′ ) (i,i ′′ ) Crosswalk Length Green of Green Green
dp =
i,i ′ ∈T i,i ′′ ∈D
(15) Crosswalk Length (m) (s) (s) (s) (s)
∑q
( ) i,i ′ ∈T
(i ,i ′ ) + ∑ q(
( )
i,i ′′ ∈D
i,i ′′ )
Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road
C1–C2 25 150  0 17  17
where dp is the pedestrian control delay of the intersection (s) and
C2–C3 18 150 66 36 102
q(i,i′) and q(i,i″) are the pedestrian volumes from corner i to corner i′
C3–C4 25 150  0 17  17
((i, i′) ∈ T) and from corner i to corner i″ ((i, i″) ∈ D), respectively
C4–C1 18 150 66 36 102
(pedestrians/hour).
Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road
C1–C2 21 120  0 16  16
Model Validation C2–C3 25 120 60 14  74
C3–C4 21 120  0 16  16
The pedestrian control delay model is further validated on the basis C4–C1 25 120 60 14  74
of field measurements at two signalized intersections in Cixi, China.
The traffic data were obtained with the use of video cameras, as shown Note: C1, C2, C3, and C4 indicate Corners 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively.
100 Transportation Research Record 2615

13,619 pedestrians were measured. The crossing of the right-turn TABLE 2   Pedestrian Volume
slip lanes was uncontrolled. It is not included in the delay observa-
tions and calculations, nor were all the right-turn pedestrians and Original Destination Pedestrian Original Destination Pedestrian
Corner Corner Volume Corner Corner Volume
pedestrians who violated the red signal.
Xinchen Avenue and Xinchen Avenue
South Second Ring Road and G329 Road
Pedestrian Demand and Arrival Distribution 1 2 568 1 2 691
1 3 472 1 3 596
In total, 13,619 pedestrians (excluding the right-turn pedestrians 1 4 503 1 4 673
and pedestrians who violated the red signal) arrived at the two
2 1 621 2 1 690
intersections during the survey time. The pedestrian demand of
2 3 491 2 3 538
each crossing direction is shown in Table 2. The distribution of
2 4 430 2 4 548
the arrival time is shown in Figure 6. Kolmogorov–Smirnov test
results (see Table 3) show that the pedestrian arrival times obey 3 1 528 3 1 567
uniform distribution ( p-value = .237 > .05 and .175 > .05 for the 3 2 546 3 2 664
two intersections). 3 4 463 3 4 718
4 1 602 4 1 744
4 2 395 4 2 555
Walking Speed Distribution 4 3 493 4 3 523

The average walking speed of each pedestrian crossing the street
was measured. The distribution of the mean walking speeds of
the two intersections is shown in Figure 7. As shown in Table 4,
the walking speed of each intersection is examined for normality
(p-value = .465 > .05 and .148 > .05 for the two intersections) and
homogeneity of variance ( p-value = .808 > .05) with the Kolmogorov–
Smirnov and Levene’s tests, respectively. One could also observe that
the difference between the two intersections in regard to the mean
value of the walking speed is minor. The t-test of independent
samples shows that there is no significant difference in the walking
speed between the two intersections (t = 0.851, p-value = .395 > .05)
(see Table 4). Therefore, the average value (v = 1.225 m/s) is used
in the following analysis.
Note: Total pedestrian volume for Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring
Road is 6,112. Total pedestrian volume for Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road
is 7,507.
Validation of Moving Path Distribution
In the survey, 4,089 pedestrians crossed the street along the diagonal
direction. According to Equations 2 and 4, the proportion of the
pedestrian volume of the clockwise and anticlockwise paths could
be calculated.
A comparison between the results of the proposed model and
those of the survey is summarized in Table 5. The percentages of
differences are within 10% in all cases. Further, paired t-test results

60 50

50 40
Frequency

Frequency

40
30
30
20
20

10 10

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Arrival Time in Cycle (s) Arrival Time in Cycle (s)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 6   Distribution of pedestrian arrival time: (a) Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road
and (b) Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road.

TABLE 3   Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test for Arrival Distribution

Uniform Parameter Most Extreme Differences

Sig.
Intersection Number Minimum Maximum Absolute Positive Negative Z (Two-tailed)

Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road 6,112 0 150 0.013 0.013 −0.007 1.033 .237
Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road 7,507 0 120 0.013 0.013 −0.005 1.103 .175

Note: Z = critical value; Sig. = significance level.

Zhao and Liu 101

2,000 100 2,000 100

Frequency Frequency
1,600 distribution 80 1,600 distribution 80

Frequency (%)

Frequency (%)
Cumulative

Cumulative
Frequency

Frequency
1,200 Cumulative 60 1,200 Cumulative 60
curve curve
800 40 800 40

400 20 400 20

0 0 0 0
0. .5

0. .7

0. .9

1. .1

1. .3

1. .5

1. .7
9
.9

0. .5

0. .7

0. .9

1. .1

1. .3

1. .5

1. .7
9
.9
1.

1.
<0

>1

<0

>1
5–

7–

9–

1–

3–

5–

7–

5–

7–

9–

1–

3–

5–

7–
Walking Speed (m/s) Walking Speed (m/s)
(a) (b)

FIGURE 7   Distribution of pedestrian walking speed.

TABLE 4   Statistical Analysis for Walking Speed

Kolmogorov–
Smirnov Test Levene’s Test t-Test for
Normal for Normal for Equality of Equality of
Parameter Distribution Variances Means

Intersection Number Mean SD Z Sig. F Sig. t Sig.

Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road 6,112 1.228 0.321 0.850 0.465 0.059 0.808 0.851 0.395
Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road 7,507 1.223 0.324 1.367 0.148 0.059 0.808 0.851 0.395

Note: F = F-statistic.

TABLE 5   Comparison of Moving Path Distribution Between Model and Field Survey

Field Survey

Crossing Volume of Moving Volume of

Direction Moving Path Path (Ped.) Direction (Ped.) Proportion Model Results Error (%)

Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road

C1–C3 Clockwise 199 472 0.422 0.433 2.6
Anticlockwise 273 0.578 0.567 −1.9
C2–C4 Clockwise 255 430 0.593 0.567 −4.4
Anticlockwise 175 0.407 0.433 6.4
C3–C1 Clockwise 245 528 0.464 0.433 −6.7
Anticlockwise 283 0.536 0.567 5.8
C4–C2 Clockwise 222 395 0.562 0.567 0.9
Anticlockwise 173 0.438 0.433 −1.1
Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road
C1–C3 Clockwise 331 596 0.555 0.517 −6.8
Anticlockwise 265 0.445 0.483 8.5
C2–C4 Clockwise 256 548 0.467 0.483 3.4
Anticlockwise 292 0.533 0.517 −3.0
C3–C1 Clockwise 292 567 0.515 0.517 0.4
Anticlockwise 275 0.485 0.483 −0.4
C4–C2 Clockwise 275 555 0.495 0.483 −2.4
Anticlockwise 280 0.505 0.517 2.4

Note: Ped. = pedestrian.

102 Transportation Research Record 2615

TABLE 6  Paired t-Test for Moving Path Distribution Validation

Paired Differences

95% Confidence
Interval of Difference
Standard Error Sig.
Pair Mean SD Mean Lower Upper t df (Two-tailed)

Survey—proposed model 0.0091 0.0206 0.00728 −0.0081 0.0263 1.254 7 .250

Note: df = degrees of freedom.

(see Table 6) show no significant difference between the results
estimated by the proposed model and those elicited from the field
survey (t = 1.254, p-value = .250 > .05), indicating that the accuracy
of the proposed moving path distribution model is acceptable.
Validation of Pedestrian Control Delay
To validate the pedestrian control delay model, the control delay of
each pedestrian was measured. The calculation results of the pro-
posed and the HCM 2010 models were compared with the field
survey data under each crossing direction at the two intersections,
as shown in Table 7.
One could observe that the proposed model could generally elicit
an error under 10% in all cases. Paired t-test results (see Table 8)
further show no significant difference between results estimated by
the proposed model and those from the field survey (t = −0.252,
p-value = .803 > .05), while the difference between the results esti-
mated by the HCM 2010 model and those from the field survey is
significant (t = −3.724, p-value = .001 < .05).

TABLE 7   Pedestrian Control Delay Comparison Between Model and Field Survey

Proposed Model HCM 2010 Model

Crossing Direction Survey Delay (s) Delay (s) Errora (%) Delay (s) Errora (%)

Xinchen Avenue and South Second Ring Road

C1–C2 59.51 58.96 −0.93 58.96 −0.93
C1–C3 69.28 68.67 −0.88 102.28 47.63
C1–C4 39.71 43.32 9.10 43.32 9.10
C2–C1 60.65 58.96 −2.78 58.96 −2.78
C2–C3 44.25 43.32 −2.11 43.32 −2.11
C2–C4 68.67 68.67 −0.01 102.28 48.94
C3–C1 64.35 68.67 6.71 102.28 49.63
C3–C2 41.53 43.32 4.31 43.32 4.31
C3–C4 60.15 58.96 −1.98 58.96 −1.98
C4–C1 42.64 43.32 1.59 43.32 1.59
C4–C2 68.41 68.67 0.37 102.28 49.50
C4–C3 57.87 58.96 1.89 58.96 1.89
Entire intersection 56.16 56.72 1.01 66.41 18.26
Xinchen Avenue and G329 Road
C1–C2 46.14 45.07 −2.32 45.07 −2.32
C1–C3 67.51 56.17 −8.69 91.89 49.38
C1–C4 47.69 46.82 −1.83 46.82 −1.83
C2–C1 44.44 45.07 1.42 45.07 1.42
C2–C3 46.84 46.82 −0.04 46.82 −0.04
C2–C4 54.84 56.17 2.42 91.89 67.56
C3–C1 65.30 56.17 −9.83 91.89 47.50
C3–C2 44.31 46.82 5.66 46.82 5.66
C3–C4 43.72 45.07 3.10 45.07 3.10
C4–C1 46.20 46.82 1.35 46.82 1.35
C4–C2 52.47 56.17 7.04 91.89 75.11
C4–C3 45.86 45.07 −1.72 45.07 −1.72
Entire intersection 50.01 49.03 −0.56 59.81 21.30
a
The error is calculated with field survey data as a benchmark.
Zhao and Liu 103

TABLE 8  Paired t-Test for Pedestrian Control Delay Validation

Paired Differences

95% Confidence
Interval of Difference
Standard Error Sig.
Pair Mean SD Mean Lower Upper t df (Two-tailed)

Survey—proposed model −0.115  2.328 0.457   −1.055 0.825 −0.252 25 .803

Survey—HCM model −11.414 15.627 3.065 −17.726 −5.102 −3.724 25 .001

Moreover, the calculation accuracy of the proposed model for the
diagonal crossing directions, including C1-C3, C2-C4, C3-C1, and
C4-C2, is much higher than the HCM 2010 model’s. Therefore, the
proposed model outperforms the HCM 2010 model in estimating
the pedestrian control delay of the overall intersection (17.26% and
20.74% higher in estimation accuracy for the two intersections).
Discussion of Results
The conducted validation underlines the advantage of the proposed
model in estimating the pedestrian control delay of the diagonal
crossing direction, which is affected mainly by the length of the green
of the crosswalks and by the time gap of the green light between the
two adjacent crosswalks. If the time gap of the green light between
the two adjacent crosswalks is small, the pedestrians could receive the
green signal at the second crosswalk immediately after crossing the
first crosswalk, thereby allowing them to accomplish the diagonal
crossing more smoothly. Figure 8 is a more intuitive illustration
of those effects. In this figure, the two horizontal axes represent the
length of the green of the crosswalk and the time gap of the green
light between the two adjacent crosswalks. The vertical coordinate is
the pedestrian control delay of the diagonal crossing direction. In this
analysis, the length of the green time of the four crosswalks is equal;
the length of the crosswalk is set to be 15 m, and the walking speed
is set to be 1.2 m/s.
It can be observed that the delay of the diagonal crossing direction
increases with an increase in the green time gap between the two
adjacent crosswalks because pedestrians have to wait a longer time
at the second crosswalk. Moreover, the delay of the diagonal cross-
ing direction also increases with an increase in the green time of the
crosswalk because the pedestrians always have to wait at the second
crosswalk regardless of when they arrive at the intersection.
With the consideration of the pedestrian crossing directions and
moving paths, the proposed model could estimate the pedestrian
control delay of the overall intersection more accurately. The degree
of the improvement in accuracy depends on the proportion of the
pedestrians crossing diagonally. Figure 9 gives an intuitive illustra-
tion of its effect. In this analysis, three cases of signal timing are
considered: (a) Case 1, in which the cycle length was 160 s and
the length of the crosswalk green time was 40 s, (b) Case 2, in which
the cycle length was 120 s and the length of the crosswalk green time
was 30 s, and (c) Case 3, in which the cycle length was 80 s and the
length of the crosswalk green time was 20 s. It can be observed that
the improvement increases from 0% to approximately 40% when
the proportion of the diagonal crossing increases from 0 to 0.8.
Conclusion
A new pedestrian control delay model was proposed in which the
diagonal crossing and the moving paths were considered. The pro-
posed model was validated on the basis of field measurements. The
main factors affecting the diagonal crossing pedestrian control delay
were also discussed. From the analysis, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
1. This paper has proved that the existing model of HCM 2010
could not provide the necessary accuracy in estimating the pedestrian
delay of the diagonal crossing. The largest differences between
Delay of the Intersection (s)

0–20 20–40 40–60 60–80 80–100

90
Control Delay of Diagonal

80
Crossing Direction (s)

100
70
80
60
60 50
40 40
20 30
20
0 10
Tim 50
Tw e G 0
50
o A ap 40 40 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80
dja of 30 f
ce Gre 30 no
nt ree (s) Proportion of Diagonal Crossings
Cr en B 20 20 o f G
lk
os
sw etwe 10 gth swa Proposed model (Case 1) HCM 2010 model (Case 1)
alk en Len Cros
s( the Proposed model (Case 2) HCM 2010 model (Case 2)
s)
Proposed model (Case 3) HCM 2010 model (Case 3)

FIGURE 8   Effects of signal timing on diagonal crossing FIGURE 9   Effects of proportion of diagonal crossings
pedestrian control delay. on improvement of accuracy.
104
the calculated delays and the actual field measurements were up to
75.11%. Accordingly, the existing model in HCM 2010 could not
estimate the pedestrian delay of the overall intersection accurately.
The largest differences reached 21.3%.
2. The proposed model yielded more accurate results in estimat-
ing the control delay of the pedestrians crossing diagonally. The
proposed model could generally minimize the error under 10% in
all cases. Moreover, paired t-test results showed that no significant
difference exists between results estimated by the proposed model
and those elicited from the field survey. It reveals that compared with
the HCM 2010 model, the proposed model is promising in increasing
the estimation accuracy of the pedestrian control delay of the diagonal
crossing and the entire intersection (approximately 20%).
3. Analysis of the sensitivity of the delay showed that the delay of
the diagonal crossing increased with increases in the time gap of the
green light between the two adjacent crosswalks and with increases
in the crosswalk green time.
The newly developed model is useful in estimating the pedestrian
control delays of the diagonal crossing and the entire intersection.
The final estimation model given is based on the uniform arrival
assumption. Therefore, the pedestrian arrival distribution should be
tested before further applications.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation
of China.
References
  1. Petritsch, T. A., B. W. Landis, P. S. McLeod, H. F. Huang, S. Challa, and
M. Guttenplan. Level-of-Service Model for Pedestrians at Signalized
Intersections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 1939, 2005, pp. 53–62. https://doi.org
/10.3141/1939-07.
  2. Lu, G. X., Y. Zhang, and D. A. Noyce. Intelligent Traffic Signal System
for Isolated Intersections: Dynamic Pedestrian Accommodation. Trans-
portation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2259, 2011, pp. 96–111. https://doi.org/10.3141/2259-09.
  3. Ma, W., D. Liao, Y. Liu, and H. K. Lo. Optimization of Pedestrian Phase
Patterns and Signal Timings for Isolated Intersection. Transportation
Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 58, 2015, pp. 502–514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.08.023.
 4. Ma, W., Y. Liu, and K. L. Head. Optimization of Pedestrian Phase
Patterns at Signalized Intersections: A Multi-Objective Approach. Jour-
nal of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 48, No. 8, 2014, pp. 1138–1152.
https://doi.org/10.1002/atr.1256.
  5. Ma, W., Y. Liu, H. Xie, and X. Yang. Multiobjective Optimization of
Signal Timings for Two-Stage, Midblock Pedestrian Crosswalk. Transpor-
tation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2264, 2011, pp. 34–43. https://doi.org/10.3141/2264-05.
  6. Yang, Z., and R. F. Benekohal. Use of Genetic Algorithm for Phase Opti-
mization at Intersections with Minimization of Vehicle and Pedestrian
Delays. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2264, 2011, pp. 54–64. https://doi.org/10.3141
/2264-07.
  7. He, Q., K. L. Head, and J. Ding. Multi-Modal Traffic Signal Control with
Priority, Signal Actuation, and Coordination. Transportation Research
Part C: Emerging Technologies, Vol. 46, 2014, pp. 65–82. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.trc.2014.05.001.
  8. Roshandeh, A. M., H. S. Levinson, Z. Li, H. Patel, and B. Zhou. New
Methodology for Intersection Signal Timing Optimization to Simulta-
neously Minimize Vehicle and Pedestrian Delays. Journal of Transpor-
tation Engineering, Vol. 140, No. 5, 2014, pp. 382–398. https://doi.org
/10.1061/(ASCE)TE.1943-5436.0000658.
Transportation Research Record 2615
  9. Ma, W., X. Yang, W. Pu, and Y. Liu. Signal Timing Optimization Models
for Two-Stage Midblock Pedestrian Crossing. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2198, 2010,
pp. 133–144. https://doi.org/10.3141/2198-15.
10. Yu, C. H., W. J. Ma, and X. G. Yang. Integrated Optimization of Loca-
tion and Signal Timings for Midblock Pedestrian Crosswalk. Journal
of Advanced Transportation, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2016, pp. 552–569. https://
doi.org/10.1002/atr.1360.
11. Houten, R., R. Ellis, and J. L. Kim. Effects of Various Minimum Green
Times on Percentage of Pedestrians Waiting for Midblock “Walk” Signal.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 2002, 2007, pp. 78–83. https://doi.org/10.3141/2002-10.
12. Ren, G., Z. Zhou, W. Wang, Y. Zhang, and W. Wang. Crossing Behav-
iors of Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2264, 2011,
pp. 65–73. https://doi.org/10.3141/2264-08.
13. Duduta, N., Q. Zhang, and M. Kroneberger. Impact of Intersection
Design on Pedestrians’ Choice to Cross on Red. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2464, 2014,
pp. 93–99. https://doi.org/10.3141/2464-12.
14. Pretty, R. L. The Delay to Pedestrians and Vehicles at Signalized Inter-
sections. ITE Journal, Vol. 49, 1979, pp. 20–23.
15. Highway Capacity Manual 2010. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010.
16. Fitzpatrick, K. Improving Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalized Intersections.
ITE Journal, Vol. 77, No. 5, 2007, pp. 34–41.
17. Wei, D., H. Liu, and Z. Tian. Vehicle Delay Estimation at Unsignalised
Pedestrian Crosswalks with Probabilistic Yielding Behaviour. Transport-
metrica A: Transportation Science, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2015, pp. 103–118.
18. Guo, X., M. C. Dunne, and J. A. Black. Modeling of Pedestrian Delays
with Pulsed Vehicular Traffic Flow. Transportation Science, Vol. 38,
No. 1, 2004, pp. 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1287/trsc.1030.0025.
19. Griffiths, J. D., J. G. Hunt, and M. Marlow. Delays at Pedestrian
Crossings—4. Mathematical Models. Traffic Engineering and Control,
Vol. 26, No. 5, 1985, pp. 277–282.
20. Chilukuri, V., and M. R. Virkler. Validation of HCM Pedestrian Delay
Model for Interrupted Facilities. Journal of Transportation Engineering,
Vol. 131, No. 12, 2005, pp. 939–945. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-947X(2005)131:12(939).
21. Kruszyna, M., P. Mackiewicz, and A. Szydlo. Influence of Pedestri-
ans’ Entry Process on Pedestrian Delays at Signal-Controlled Cross-
walks. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 11, 2006,
pp. 855–861. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-947X(2006)132
:11(855).
22. Virkler, M. R. Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. Trans-
portation Research Record, No. 1636, 1998, pp. 88–91. https://doi.org
/10.3141/1636-14.
23. Li, Q., Z. Wang, J. Yang, and J. Wang. Pedestrian Delay Estimation at
Signalized Intersections in Developing Cities. Transportation Research
Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 39, No. 1, 2005, pp. 61–73. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.tra.2004.11.002.
24. Nagraj, R., and P. Vedagiri. Modeling Pedestrian Delay and Level of
Service at Signalized Intersection Crosswalks Under Mixed Traffic
Conditions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-
portation Research Board, No. 2394, 2013, pp. 70–76. https://doi.org
/10.3141/2394-09.
25. Ye, X., J. Chen, G. Jiang, and X. Yan. Modeling Pedestrian Level of
Service at Signalized Intersection Crosswalks Under Mixed Traffic Con-
ditions. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board, No. 2512, 2015, pp. 46–55. https://doi.org/10.3141
/2512-06.
26. Wang, X., and Z. Tian. Pedestrian Delay at Signalized Intersections with
a Two-Stage Crossing Design. Transportation Research Record: Journal
of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2173, 2010, pp. 133–138.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2173-16.
27. Goh, P. K., and W. H. K. Lam. Pedestrian Flows and Walking Speed:
A Problem at Signalized Crosswalks. ITE Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1, 2004,
pp. 28–33.
28. Lee, J. Y. S., and W. H. K. Lam. Simulating Pedestrian Movements at
Signalized Crosswalks in Hong Kong. Transportation Research Part A:
Policy and Practice, Vol. 42, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1314–1325. https://doi.org
/10.1016/j.tra.2008.06.009.
The Standing Committee on Highway Capacity and Quality of Service peer-reviewed
this paper.