AnalysisofPedestrianMovementonDelhiRoadsUsingNaturalisticObservationTechniques AJ GT DM SM SB TRR

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/315988449
Analysis of Pedestrian Movement on Delhi Roads by Using Naturalistic

Observation Techniques
Article in Transportation Research Record Journal of the Transportation Research Board · January 2017
DOI: 10.3141/2634-14
CITATIONS READS
12 1,734
5 authors, including:
Abhaya Jha Geetam Tiwari

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
4 PUBLICATIONS 14 CITATIONS 137 PUBLICATIONS 4,483 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Dinesh Mohan Sudipto Mukherjee

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
188 PUBLICATIONS 6,071 CITATIONS 196 PUBLICATIONS 856 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
How do workers travel to job in India: Getting answers from the Census 2011 View project
Flywheel Energy Storage System View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Abhaya Jha on 27 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Jha, Tiwari, Mohan, Mukherjee, Banerjee 1
ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT ON DELHI ROADS USING

NATURALISTIC OBSERVATION TECHNIQUES
Abhaya Jha, Corresponding Author

TRIPP, Indian Institute of Technology – Delhi
MS 808-815, 7th Floor Main Building, Indian Institute of Technology
Hauz Khas, New Delhi 110016, India
Tel: +91-11-25696361 Email: abhaya_jha@live.com
Dr. Geetam Tiwari

Tel: +91-11-25696361 Email: geetamt@gmail.com
Dr. Dinesh Mohan

Tel: +91-11-25696361 Email: dineshmohan@outlook.com
Dr. Sudipto Mukherjee

Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology – Delhi
II-426, Indian Institute of Technology
Tel: +91-11-25691138 Email: sudipto@mech.iitd.ac.in
Dr. Subhashish Banerjee

Dept. of Computer Science Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology – Delhi
Bharti Building, Indian Institute of Technology
Tel: +91-11-25691288 Email: suban@iitd.ac.in
Word count: 5227 + 8 tables/figures x 250words (each) = 7227

Submission Date: 1st August 2016
ABSTRACT
Pedestrian fatalities constitute about 30% of the deaths caused due to road traffic crashes
in India. The proportion of pedestrian fatalities in large cities (Delhi, Mumbai etc.) varies from 50-
60% and about 20-30% on National and State highways. Pedestrians are present on all categories
of roads in urban as well as rural areas. At least 20-40% of work trips are as pedestrian trips in
most Indian cities. However pedestrian facilities such as foot paths, safe crossing facilities are not
present in most Indian cities. Even when present, their poor maintenance and poor quality of
construction make them unusable. As a result of this pedestrians are forced to share the road space
with motorised vehicles and cross roads where there is no safe pedestrian crossing. This paper
attempts to study the pedestrian behaviour – walking along the road and crossing the road by
detecting pedestrians using a vehicle mounted camera. The vehicle is driven on various categories
of roads at different times. The data collected with this method makes it varied both temporally as
well as spatially. A smartphone based GPS logging app was used to collect telemetry data which
was synced with the camera feed. The objective of this study is to understand pedestrian
behaviour-walking on the road vs. footpath in the presence of different road features such as
number of lanes, presence of medians, presence of footpaths etc. Influence of presence of public
transport stops, junctions, foot over bridges, grade separated junctions (flyover) is studied on
pedestrian crossing behaviour.
Keywords: Pedestrian Behaviour, Naturalistic Observation, Pedestrian Crossing, Footpath Usage
INTRODUCTION
Pedestrians are the most vulnerable group of road-users. In India nearly 30% of all road
traffic fatalities involve pedestrians (1). The proportion of pedestrian fatalities in large cities like
Delhi and Mumbai is 50-60% of all road traffic fatalities (2). The proportion of pedestrian fatalities
in smaller cities ranges from 25-40 % (3). On highways also pedestrians are involved in 25-30%
of fatal crashes (4). Understanding vehicle pedestrian interaction is an important aspect of reducing
risk to pedestrians present on the road. Pedestrians are present on all category of road in urban as
well as rural areas. Pedestrian’s presence is expected on urban roads since nearly 20-40% of
commuting trips are as pedestrian trips in most Indian cities as per Census of India, 2011 (5). In
large cities like Delhi ad Mumbai nearly 35-50% trips are pedestrian trips (6). However adequate
pedestrian facilities such as foot paths, safe crossing facilities are not present in most Indian cities.
In few instances when they are present, their poor maintenance and poor quality of construction
make them unusable (7). As a result, pedestrians are forced to share the road space with motorized
vehicles and to use cross the roads where there is no safe pedestrian crossing.. Most highways are
not access control highways in India. Many highways pass through small towns and villages
without any specific provision for pedestrian or other local traffic. These segments of the road also
tend to have high pedestrian fatalities.
Understanding pedestrian behaviour-crossing the road or walking along the road, on
different types of roads specially in the presence of moving vehicles will provide useful insights
for required changes in road design- lane widths, median design, pedestrian refuge , location of
bus stops, and speed control measures for vehicles. The objective of this study is to estimate the
impact of road features such as number of lanes, presence of medians, on pedestrian’s choice of
walking on the road or the footpath. Influence of presence of public transport stops, junctions, foot
over bridges, grade separated junctions (flyover) is studied on pedestrian crossing behaviour.
Studies to understand pedestrian behaviour have been carried out in several countries but are
lacking in India.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Pedestrian-vehicle interactions impact pedestrian risk on urban networks, as well as the
pedestrian-related facility performance. A large number of field studies have been done to observe
pedestrian crossing behaviour (8-19). Other studies have focussed on the unsafe pedestrian
crossing behaviour at intersections and/or other crossing locations. Number of researchers have
focussed on whether pedestrians do “safe crossing” or “unsafe” crossing. This includes a study by
Ashur (20) and others that an unsafe crossing behaviour of pedestrian is one of the “predominant
contributing factors” of pedestrian casualty. Mullen and others (21) found that about 25%, King
and others (22) 20% and Keegan and O’Mahony (23) 35% of pedestrians cross the road unsafely
at a signalized crossing. Unsafe crossing behaviour is associated with an 8 time increased crash
risk in comparison with safe crossing, as reported by Sisiopiku and Akin (24). They also found
that nonsignalized midblock crosswalks were the treatment of preference for pedestrians, and they
showed the high crossing compliance rate of pedestrians. Crosswalk location, relative to the origin
and destination of the pedestrian, was the most influential decision factor for pedestrians deciding
to cross at a designated location. Jacobs and Wilson (25) found that the risk of a pedestrian accident
is lowest on a zebra crossing, but significantly higher in the region within 50 yards (46 meters) of
the crossing.
Cantillo et al (26) analysed the choice on how to cross an urban road where 3 options were
available: crossing directly, crossing using a pedestrian bridge and crosswalk at a signalized
intersection. Discrete choice model including data variables were used. The results showed 45
percent use of crosswalk at intersection, 30 percent directly anywhere on the road and only 25
percent using pedestrian bridges. The study also concluded that pedestrians are more prone to use
the alternative route involving less walking distance, however their risk taking attitude decreased
if a minor was involved. The findings conclude that pedestrian bridges should only be considered
in the extreme cases, as they tend to be non-effective crossing facility. Another finding which is
quite surprising is that perception of safety in terms of accident is lower for a direct crossing. Also,
perception of security (robbed) is worst for pedestrian bridges. The study was conducted in
Colombia.
Papadimitrou & Yaanis (27) made a comparative analysis of observed and declared
behaviour of pedestrians with respect to road crossing in urban areas. It was assumed that diagonal
crossing is dependent on the pedestrian’s tendency to optimize the trajectory and save time. With
respect to mid-block crossing an important finding was that non- negligible proportion of
pedestrians may cross at mid-block even at major roads. Tendency of females to overestimate their
declared behaviour over observed behaviour was identified on minor/ residential roads, while the
opposite was true for male on major roads. Pawar & Patil (28) observed pedestrian temporal and
spatial gap acceptance at mid-block street crossing in developing world context. The context
specific results showed pedestrians accept smaller gaps if the conflicting vehicle is smaller such
as 2 wheelers or auto-rickshaws. These gap values were smaller than that reported in the studies
in developed countries. The speed of conflicting vehicle was found to be significant in spatial gap
but not in temporal gap acceptance. Dai (29), Brude and Larsson,(30); Retting et al., (31)have
shown how the design and quality of the built environment impacts pedestrian crashes. Traffic
volumes, parked vehicles, traffic speed and lack of pedestrian facilities were the most frequently
mentioned sources of danger by Salter et al. (32). Research indicates that the width of the street
(33), the number of lanes (34) and roadway light (35) have much influence on pedestrian crashes.
Pedestrian exposure Studies have focussed either on macroscopic aggregated measures or

disaggregated microscopic trip based. At the aggregate level, place-based and trip-based measures
have been widely used to estimate exposure (36). Place-based methods include the number of
population living within a certain predefined areal units like census blocks (37;38) and population
density computed at census tract level (39). Some commonly used trip-based measures are also
aggregate in nature; and they include distance travelled and time spent walking. Lam et al (40)
have discussed how these measures usually examine one trip type at a time and do not consider
trip chaining effects. Moreover, samples of pedestrian volume are often gauged by counting the
number of persons passing through designated measurement points during the observation periods
(41). Places like intersection crossings are most commonly used as the points for data collection.
Nonetheless, mid-block crossings tend to be ignored.
Pedestrian-vehicle interactions affect pedestrian traffic operations in urban networks, as

well as the pedestrian-related facility performance and risk to pedestrians. Factors like the physical
characteristics of the built environment as well as the behavioural factors of drivers and pedestrians
have been extensively studied in pedestrian-vehicle collisions in countries outside India. To
establish effective road safety countermeasures, it is essential to have information not only on the
number and nature of the collisions but also the travel behaviour of pedestrians in the presence of
moving vehicle.
This study focusses on observing pedestrian behaviour from a moving vehicle on different
types of roads in and around Delhi at different times of the day. The data provides information of
pedestrian behaviour over space and time in the presence of vehicles. The data may be combined
with crash data or conflict data for assessing risk to pedestrians on different types of roads with
different design features. The issues focused on in the study are
1. Where the pedestrians were observed walking, on road or on footpath
2. Where the pedestrians were seen crossing the road
METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this study a GoPro HERO 4 Silver camera was installed on the vehicle
dashboard. The camera records the video of the front of the vehicle and the view is what
corresponds also to the driver’s field of vision. As these videos were taken for a regular drive
cycles a driver encounters like work trips, leisure trips, personal trips etc., the drive cycle data
represents the same. The pedestrian encounters are similar to what normal driver encounters. The
GPS data was recorded using an android app. The start and end time of recordings were noted.
Using a software the video file was synced with the GPS and the latitude longitude data, speed of
the vehicle, date and time data was displayed on the video. A sample of the video is shown in
Figure 1.
The videos were then manually analysed for the presence of pedestrians on the roads where
the vehicle drove. The observations were based on the following parameters
1. Time of observation – including both the date and time when the pedestrian was observed
2. Position of the pedestrian – the latitude and the longitude of the pedestrian were noted
3. Velocity of the vehicle at the time of pedestrian encounter
4. Age of the pedestrian – which was based on the visual identification of child or an adult.
5. Gender of the pedestrian
6. Movement of the pedestrian – standing, moving parallel to traffic or crossing / attempting
to cross the road
7. Position of the pedestrian – whether on the road or pedestrian walkway
8. Road type – the roads are classified based on the number of lanes and the presence of a
raised median
9. Road features – when the pedestrian was observed if they were near any junction,
pedestrian crossing, public transport junction, shop etc. were noted. If no discernible
feature was observed that was also noted.
The observations were collected and tabulated. A total of 132 km of drive data was collected (Table 1)
which spanned over 7 hours of driving. Only the pedestrians on the same side of the road as the
vehicle were noted and any pedestrians on opposite side of the roads were ignored. It is pertinent
to note that especially at higher vehicle speeds the total time a pedestrian was in view of the camera
tends to be short. As a result the full movement of the pedestrian usually is not observable. For
example in case of crossings we may observe a partial crossing while the pedestrian is still in the
field of view of the camera and the crossing manoeuvre would complete after the vehicle has
moved forward removing the observed pedestrian from the view.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We observed three categories of pedestrian movement as shown in Table 2. Pedestrians
moving parallel to the flow of traffic were classified as moving along the traffic. Pedestrians
standing and waiting on the side of the roads were classified as standing and the pedestrians
moving perpendicular to traffic were classified as crossing. It is important to note that since the
observations were taken from a moving vehicle which was part of the traffic stream, incidents of
pedestrians crossing fully from one side of the road to the other were localized to low vehicle
speeds, large gap with the front vehicles and at junctions. Thus the number of crossings in the
study include staged crossing as well as intention to cross.
Use of Footpaths
On Delhi roads we find a large number of pedestrians share the main carriageway with the
vehicles. In our study we found 58% of the pedestrian observed travelling on the road and 42%
using the pedestrian footpath. This was despite the fact that on more than 90% of the roads the
pedestrian were observed had a pedestrian footpath present. The study has not documented the
quality of the footpath for its usability.
Table 3 shows the rate per kilometre of a driver pedestrian encounter. The majority of
pedestrian encounters were on 2 lane roads which are the roads running through residential and
commercial areas. And these places high density of pedestrians were encountered. The arterial 6
lane roads also showed high pedestrian density compared to the 4 lanes and 8 lane roads which
saw the lowest pedestrian movement per km.
A binary logistic model was run on the absolute number of pedestrians observed where the
dependant variable taken was pedestrian moving on road/carriageway (true) vs. pedestrians using
footpaths (false). The independent variables were the road type (based on the number of lanes),
presence of a raised median, gender and age of the pedestrian of footpath usage. Only the roads
which had a pedestrian footpath was present were considered in the model. The total number of
pedestrian observed were 849. The model was run on SPSS package and reported a Nagelkerke R2
value of 0.052, a chi-square value of 33.975 and a log likelihood of 1141.008. The significant
variables that were found are shown in table 4
The 2 lane roads were used as the base for comparing the influence of number of lanes on
pedestrian behaviour. The main arterial roads which are the 6 lane roads were found to have 10
time the probability of the footpath use compared to 2 lane roads.
As the number of lanes changes to four lanes or eight lanes, the footpath usage decreases to 4.4
and 2.9 times, respectively, compared with two-lane roads. The presence of a raised median was
shown to reduce the usage of the pedestrian footpaths by more than 40% compared to the absence
of it. We have also found the probability of children to be travelling on footpath to be higher as
compared to the carriageway. Since the study was based on categorizing the age based solely on
the observation of the physical stature of the individual, which may have resulted in exclusion of
taller children and teenagers. Due to this a very low proportion of children were observed biasing
the observations as they seemingly may be observed as adults.
Crossing Behaviour of Pedestrians
To categorize the crossing behaviour of the pedestrian the first thing that was observed was
the location at which the pedestrian attempted to cross the road. These location were divided into
5 categories which are as follows
1. Junctions – These denoted the signalised junctions on the roads, it is pertinent to note that
most of them had marked zebra crossings. Whereas some smaller roads (feeder or
residential roads) had no zebra crossings.
2. Public transport nodes – These include bus stops, metro rail stations, taxi or auto-rickshaw
stands.
3. Flyovers – These were the crossings at the foot of an elevated roadway
4. Foot Over Bridge – These numbers represents the crossings observed when pedestrian
crossing infrastructure was present and the crossing of the road was done without utilizing
them.
5. Midblock Crossings – This represents primarily midblock crossings of the pedestrians
without the presence of any of the above features.
Figure 2 shows the various crossing locations observed. It can be observed from the distribution
that the majority of crossings were observed in midblock, followed by a large majority of the
crossings at junctions. Public transport nodes and the beginning and ends of flyovers saw a minor
percentage of crossings. A small percentage were observed crossing the road despite the presence
of a pedestrian crossing infrastructure. It is important to note that these crossings were recorded at
the point where the pedestrians were crossing or attempting to cross the road. The large number
of midblock crossings do not take into account the distances from any of the other crossing
locations, which potentially may have some correlation to the preferred crossing location similar
to what was observed in Cantillo et al (26).
Comparing the mid-block and non mid-block crossings, pedestrian encounters per km lane
is shown in Table 5. This shows that the proportion of mid-block to non mid-block crossings are
similar in 4 lane and 6 lane roads. But in 2 lane roads preference to mid-block crossing was
observed and we see the opposite in 8 lane roads. Second step was to check the effect of the vehicle
velocity of the on the crossing choice. Shown in Figure 3 is the crossing choices along with the
vehicle velocity plotted against the number of crossings encountered per km on different types of
roads. Mid-block crossing showed the maximum numbers of crossings per kilometre with peaks
when the vehicle velocity was between 20 – 40 km/h. At junctions we find crossings per km to be
quite similar for all the vehicle velocities with the high encounters at 10 – 20 km/h and 50 – 60
km/h. Public transport nodes showed pedestrian crossing at lower vehicular speeds but the
pedestrian crossings near foot over bridges were at high vehicular speeds and on wide roads.
A binary logit model was created to understand the impact of road type, vehicle velocity
age gender of the pedestrians observed. The model showed the number of lanes and age to be
insignificant variables. Vehicle velocity had a significant impact on the probability of choosing
mid-block crossing with a 2% decrease with increase of vehicle velocity. Gender was also
significant with the probability of mid-block crossing increasing in case of male pedestrians by 2
times compared to females. Presence of a median also improved the probability by 1.8 times
although the variable was significant in 70% confidence interval.
Figure 3 shows pedestrians crossing the road at different locations as the observer vehicle drove
at different speeds. A large number of pedestrians are seen crossing the road when the vehicle
speed was more than 50 Km/h. This can be associated with the high risk that pedestrians are
exposed to at different locations.
Pedestrians cross at mid blocks mostly when the speeds are between 20-40 km/h, however at
junctions pedestrians are crossing at much higher speeds too. Near foot over bridges pedestrians
are crossing 6-8 lanes in the presence of very high speeds.
Discussion and Conclusion
The results presented in this study are based on the initial observations from data obtained
with videographing pedestrian behaviour from a moving car on normal everyday trips. As the
methodology employs naturalistic data recording process it is assumed to be very close to the
driver pedestrian interactions we can expect to see occurring normally. Also as stated before, the
data varies both in a space and time which can be used to observe and describe a wide variety of
pedestrian, vehicles and road conditions.
We found 58% of the pedestrians observed travelling on the road and 42% using the
pedestrian footpath. This was despite the fact that on more than 90% of the roads had a nominal
pedestrian footpath present. The study has not documented the quality of the footpaths for their
usability. Other studies have shown poor walkability of footpaths in Delhi. This may be one of the
important reasons why pedestrians walk on the carriageway. Pedestrians walking on the curb side
lane are exposed to high risk as the same lane is used by buses, trucks and other motorised vehicles.
The study reiterates the need for designing good quality footpaths.
The majority of pedestrian encounters were on 2 lane roads which are the roads running
through residential and commercial areas. The density of pedestrians was also high on these roads.
The arterial 6 lane roads showed higher pedestrian density compared to the 4 lanes and 8 lane
roads. On 6 lane roads there was no difference between the rates of pedestrians encountered on the
footpath vs. the road. Six lane roads are relatively high speed roads with several signal free
junctions. Pedestrians’ presence on the road in the presence of high speed motorised traffic is a
definite risk to them. Use of footpath was higher on 4, 6, and 8 lane roads as compared to 2 lane
road.
This study shows that a car driver in Delhi encounters pedestrian mid-block crossings and
pedestrians walking on the carriageway relatively frequently even on 4-lane and 6-lane arterial
roads. These roads can have vehicle speeds in excess of 50 km/h especially in off peak hours and
this increases the probability of pedestrian fatality in case of conflicts and crashes. Figure 3 shows
that significant number of mid-block crossings per km were observed on 4, 6 and 8 lane roads even
when the speed of the observer vehicle was greater than 50 km/h. We have not documented the
detailed reasons why pedestrians would be crossing mid-block on these wide roads with relatively
fast traffic. It is possible that this is due to lack of safe crossing facilities near bus stops and
commercial areas and also due to long distances between traffic lights. These issues need to be
investigated in greater detail by analysis of land use characteristics and road design along the routes
traversed by the observer vehicle.
This study demonstrates that very detailed pedestrian behaviour patterns can be
documented by analysis of videography evidence from a car driven under naturalistic conditions.
In addition to the video graphic information, the instrumented car provides data from the CAN
(Controller Area Network) bus regarding speed, acceleration, and other vehicle characteristics, and
these data can be combined with GPS information to synchronise land use information along routes
travelled. Future studies using these methodologies would help in providing evidence for need
based design of pedestrian facilities along specific roads in the city.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Data collection and anlysis was aided by Mr. Eeshan Jindal, Hemant Jain and Karan Raj Singh
Chauhan of Indian Institute of Technology Delhi.
REFERENCES
1. Mohan, D., G. Tiwari. K. Bhalla (2015)., Road Safety in India:Status Report, Transportation
Research and Injury Prevention Programme, India Institute of Technology Delhi, 110016, India,
http://www.iitd.ac.in/~tripp
2. Mohan D., Tsimhoni O., Sivak M., Flannagn M.J., (2009), Road Safety in India: Challenges And
Opportunities Report No – UMTRI-2009-1, Ann Arbor, MI
3. Mohan, D., Tiwari, G., & Mukherjee, S. (2016). Urban traffic safety assessment: A case study of
six Indian cities. IATSS Research, 39(2), 95-101.
4. Naqvi, H. M. & Tiwari, G. Assessing risk factors for pedestrian fatal crashes on National Highways
in India. EASTS, 2015 Cebu, Philippines.
5. Census of India (2011)
6. Wilbur Smith Associates (2008), Study on Traffic and Transportation Policies and Strategies in
Urban Areas in India, Banglore, Karntaka.
7. Clean Air Asia – India (2011). Walkability in Indian Cities. New Delhi, Delhi)
8. Braun, R.R., Rodin, M.F. (1978). Quantifying the Benefits of Separating Pedestrians and Vehicles.
Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Washington D.C.
9. Coffin, A., Morrall, J. (1995). Walking Speeds of Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol. 1487, pp.
63-67
10. Virkler, M. (1998a). Pedestrian Compliance Effects on Signal Delay. Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board. Vol. 1636, pp. 88-91
11. Sun, D., Ukkusuri, S.V., Benekohal, R.F., Waller, S.T. (2003). Modeling of Motorist-Pedestrian
Interaction at uncontrolled Mid-Block Crosswalks. Transportation Research Record. CD-ROM.
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, 2003 Annual Meeting Washington,
D.C.
12. Li, Q., Wang, Z., Yang, J., Wang, J. (2005). Pedestrian Delay Estimation at Signalized Intersections
in Developing Cities. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Vol. 39, pp. 61-73.
13. Schroeder, B.J. (2008). A Behavior-Based Methodology for Evaluating Pedestrian-Vehicle
Interaction at Crosswalks. North Carolina State University.
14. Schroeder, B., Rouphail, N. (2010a). Event-Based Modeling of Driver Yielding Behavior at
Unsignalized Crosswalks. Journal of Transportation Engineering. Vol. 137, pp. 455-465.
15. Schroeder, B., Rouphail, N. (2010b). Mixed-Priority Pedestrian Delay Models at Single-Lane
Roundabouts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
Vol. 2182, pp. 129-138.
16. Guo, H., Gao, Z., Yang, X., Jiang, X. (2011). Modeling Pedestrian Violation Behavior at Signalized
Crosswalks in China: A Hazards-Based Duration Approach. Traffic Injury Prevention. Vol. 12, pp.
96-103
17. Molino, J.A., Kennedy, J.F., Inge, P.J., Bertola, M.A., Beuse, P.A., Fowler, N.L., Emo, A.K., Do,
A. (2012). A Distance-Based Method to Estimate Annual Pedestrian and Bicyclist Exposure in an
Urban Environment. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
18. Ni, Y., Li, K. (2012). Signal Violation Effects on Pedestrian Delay at Signalized Intersections.
Transportation Research Board 91st Annual Meeting. Vol., pp.
19. Schroeder, B., Elefteriadou, L., Sisiopiku, V., Rouphail, N., Salamati, K., Hunter, E., Phillips, B.,
Chase, T., Zheng, Y., Mamidipalli, S. (2014). Empirically-Based Performance Assessment and
Simulation of Pedestrian Behavior at Unsignalized Crossings. Southeastern Transportation
Research, Innovation, Development and Education Center (STRIDE) Project 2012-016S.
20. Ashur, S.A., K.J. Kroeker, M.H. Baaj. A study of factors contributing to pedestrian crashes in El
Paso County, Texas. In: Proceedings of the 82nd Transportation Research Board Meeting (CD-
ROM), Washington, 2003, pp. 1-20.
21. Mullen, B., C. Cooper, J.E. Driskell. Jaywalking as a function of model behaviour, Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 16(2), 1990, 320-330.
22. King, M.J., D. Soole&A. Ghafourian. "Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections:
Incidence and relative risk." Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41, (3), 2009, 485-490
23. Keegan, O. & M. O'Mahony. Modifying pedestrian behaviour. Transportation 40 Research Part
A: Policy and Practice, 37, (10), 2003, 889-901
24. Sisiopiku, V. P., &D. Akin. Pedestrian behavior and perceptions towards various pedestrian
facilities: an examination based on observation and survey data. Transportation Research Part F,
6, 2003, 249–274.
25. Jacobs, G. D. and D.G. Wilson, a study of pedestrian risk in crossing busy roads in four 47 towns,
RRL ReportsLR 106, Road Research Laboratory , England, UK
26. Cantillo, V., Arellana, J., & Rolong, M. (2015). Modelling pedestrian crossing behaviour in urban
roads: a latent variable approach. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and
behaviour, 32, 56-67.
27. Papadimitriou, E., Lassarre, S., & Yannis, G. (2016). Introducing human factors in pedestrian
crossing behaviour models. Transportation research part F: traffic psychology and behaviour, 36,
69-82.
28. Pawar, D. S., & Patil, G. R. (2015). Pedestrian temporal and spatial gap acceptance at mid-block
street crossing in developing world. Journal of safety research, 52, 39-46.
29. Dai, D. (2012). Identifying clusters and risk factors of injuries in pedestrian–vehicle crashes in a
GIS environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 206-214.
30. Brude, U. (2000). What roundabout design provides the highest possible safety?. Nordic Road and
Transport Research.
31. Retting, R. A., Ferguson, S. A., & McCartt, A. T. (2003). A review of evidence-based traffic
engineering measures designed to reduce pedestrian-motor vehicle crashes. American journal of
public health, 93(9), 1456-1463.
32. D. Salter, T. Carthy, D. Packham, N. Rhodes-Defty, D. Silcock, Risk on the roads: Perceptions of
risk and competition, Traffic Eng. Control (1993), pp. 236–241
33. Lightstone, P.K. Dhillon, C. Peek-Asa, J.F. Kraus,A geographic analysis of motor vehicle collisions
with child pedestrians in Long Beach, California: comparing intersection and midblock incident
locations, Injury Prevent., 7 (2001), pp. 155–160
34. Gårder, P.E, The impact of speed and other variables on pedestrian safety in Maine,Accid. Anal.
Prev., 36 (4) (2004), pp. 533–542
35. Lee, M. Abdel-Aty, Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in
Florida, Accid. Anal. Prev., 37 (4) (2005), pp. 775–786
36. Wundersitz, L., Hutchinson, T., 2008. Identifying and Improving Exposure Measures. Centre for
Automotive Safety Research, Adelaide
37. Wier, M., Weintraub, J., Humphreys, E.H., Seto, E., Bhatia, R., 2009. An area-level model of
vehicle - pedestrian injury collisions with implications for land use and transportation planning.
Accident Analysis & Prevention 1, 137–145.
38. Chakravarthy, B., Anderson, C.L., Ludlow, J., Lotfipour, S., Vaca, F.E., 2010. The relationship of
pedestrian injuries to socioeconomic characteristics in a large Southern California county. Traffic
Injury Prevention 5, 508–513
39. Cottrill, C.D., Thakuriah, P., 2010. Evaluating pedestrian crashes in areas with high low-income or
minority populations. Accident Analysis & Prevention 6, 1718 – 1728.
40. Lam, W. W., Yao, S., & Loo, B. P. (2014). Pedestrian exposure measures: A time-space
framework. Travel Behaviour and Society, 1(1), 22-30.
41. Davis, D.G., Braaksma, J.P., 1988. Adjusting for luggage-laden pedestrians in airport terminals.
Transportation Research Part A: General 5, 375–388.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1: Distance Travelled By the Vehicle ........................................................................................ 15

TABLE 2: Pedestrian Movements Observed ......................................................................................... 16
TABLE 3. Pedestrian Observed Per KM along the Road ..................................................................... 17
TABLE 4: Binary Logistic Model for Pedestrian on road vs. Pedestrian on footpath ....................... 18
TABLE 5. Pedestrian Crossing Observed per KM ................................................................................ 19
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. Camera feed example ........................................................................................................... 20

FIGURE 2. Pedestrian crossing choices .................................................................................................. 21
FIGURE 3. Pedestrian crossing per km observed ................................................................................. 22
TABLE 1: Distance Travelled By the Vehicle
2 Lane Road 4 Lane Road 6 Lane Road 8 Lane Road Total

Median 1.1 18.0 60.0 36.4 115.5
No Median 12.0 3.3 1.5 0.0 16.8
Total 13.1 21.3 61.5 36.4 132.3
TABLE 2: Pedestrian Movements Observed
Pedestrian Movement Count Percentage

Along the traffic 1118 54%
Standing 640 31%
Crossing 307 15%
TABLE 3. Pedestrian Observed Per KM along the Road
Road Category On Road On Footpath

2 Lane Median 9 20
2 Lane No Median 12 7
4 Lane Median 1 2
6 Lane Median 4 3
8 Lane Median 2 1
TABLE 4: Binary Logistic Model for Pedestrian on road vs. Pedestrian on footpath
Sno Variable p value Exp(B)

1 2 lane road 0.000 -
2 4 lane road 0.014 4.4
3 6 lane road 0.000 10.1
4 8 lane road 0.051 2.9
5 Divider Present (Y/N) 0.066 0.6
6 Age (Adult/Child) 0.040 2.4
TABLE 5. Pedestrian Crossing Observed per KM
2 Lane Road 4 Lane Road 6 Lane Road 8 Lane Road

Mid-block Crossing 1.2 2.7 0.7 0.4
Non Mid-block crossing 0.5 2.9 0.6 1.7
FIGURE 1. Camera feed example

Junctions
37%
Midblock Crossing
43%
Public
Transport
Nodes
9%
Foot Over Bridge

Flyovers
4%
7%
FIGURE 2. Pedestrian crossing choices

2 Lane Roads 4 Lane Roads 6 Lane Roads 8 Lane Roads
Foot Over Bridge (60 - 70 km/h)

Foot Over Bridge (40 - 50 km/h)
Public Transport (30 - 40 km/h)
Flyover (90 + km/h)
Flyover (40 - 50 km/h)
Junctions (90 + km/h)
Junctions (70 - 80 km/h)
Mid Block Crossings (90 + km/h)
Mid Block Crossings (80 - 90 km/h)
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
Pedestrian observation per km
FIGURE 3. Pedestrian crossing per km observed
View publication stats

AnalysisofPedestrianMovementonDelhiRoadsUsingNaturalisticObservationTechniques AJ GT DM SM SB TRR

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

AnalysisofPedestrianMovementonDelhiRoadsUsingNaturalisticObservationTechniques AJ GT DM SM SB TRR

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Analysis of Pedestrian Movement on Delhi Roads by Using Naturalistic

Abhaya Jha Geetam Tiwari

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Dinesh Mohan Sudipto Mukherjee

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Flywheel Energy Storage System View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ANALYSIS OF PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT ON DELHI ROADS USING

Abhaya Jha, Corresponding Author

Dr. Geetam Tiwari

Dr. Dinesh Mohan

Dr. Sudipto Mukherjee

Dr. Subhashish Banerjee

Word count: 5227 + 8 tables/figures x 250words (each) = 7227

Pedestrian exposure Studies have focussed either on macroscopic aggregated measures or

Pedestrian-vehicle interactions affect pedestrian traffic operations in urban networks, as

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

TABLE 1: Distance Travelled By the Vehicle ........................................................................................ 15

FIGURE 1. Camera feed example ........................................................................................................... 20

TABLE 1: Distance Travelled By the Vehicle

2 Lane Road 4 Lane Road 6 Lane Road 8 Lane Road Total

TABLE 2: Pedestrian Movements Observed

Pedestrian Movement Count Percentage

TABLE 3. Pedestrian Observed Per KM along the Road

Road Category On Road On Footpath

Sno Variable p value Exp(B)

TABLE 5. Pedestrian Crossing Observed per KM

2 Lane Road 4 Lane Road 6 Lane Road 8 Lane Road

FIGURE 1. Camera feed example

Foot Over Bridge

FIGURE 2. Pedestrian crossing choices

2 Lane Roads 4 Lane Roads 6 Lane Roads 8 Lane Roads

Foot Over Bridge (60 - 70 km/h)

FIGURE 3. Pedestrian crossing per km observed

View publication stats

You might also like