Transactions on Transport Sciences 2020, 11(3):37-51

Choosing footbridge or signalized crossing in an urban area: what triggers pedestrians?

Maria Ourania Skandami, Iliani Styliani Anapali, Socrates Basbas
School of Rural & Surveying Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 541 24 Thessaloniki, Greece

Pedestrians face difficulties when trying to cross a road in the urban environment since they are exposed to vehicular traffic. One of the measures to overcome the problems in the case of multilane roads with high traffic volumes is the construction of footbridges. However, pedestrians are not always in favor of footbridges for various reasons (e.g., excessive effort to use the footbridge, deviation from their scheduled route etc.). Thus, pedestrians often face a dilemma, whether to use the footbridge or the signalized crossing. In the framework of this paper an attempt has been made to examine the factors that influence the use of footbridges in the urban environment and the factors that influence the use of signalized crossings in the near area of the footbridge. The case study refers to a major arterial road with heavy traffic volumes in the city of Thessaloniki, Greece. A statistical model was developed, quantifying the impact of quantitative and qualitative factors, as well as pedestrians' social characteristics on the frequency of using the footbridge. The study area included two signalized crossings and the footbridge. Pedestrians can choose either the footbridge or the signalized intersections to cross the road. Counts were made concerning traffic volume, vehicle speed and pedestrian flow. A questionnaire- based survey including 130 interviewees was conducted among pedestrians referring to the three ways of crossing the road (2 level crossings and the footbridge). Almost half of the pedestrians (49%) stated that they never use the footbridge. Most of the responders (87%) consider the footbridge very safe even though they do not use it. In the analysis made in this paper, an ordinal regression model was developed that utilizes questionnaire survey data and field measurements. The aim of the ordinal regression model is to investigate the variables affecting the operation of the footbridge through measuring the frequency of choosing the footbridge to cross the road. The model indicated that pedestrians aged between 25-39 years old have less possibilities to cross using the footbridge. The odds ratio calculation revealed that interviewees who state that the footbridge is very easy to use are more likely to use the footbridge frequently compared to those who state that the footbridge is not at all or almost at all easy to use. The ordinal regression model predicted 0,2 times higher possibility to use the footbridge seldom when interviewees say that their distance from the footbridge affects a little or a lot their crossing point decision. Finally, amongst other important outcomes, the model revealed that interviewees spotted on the footbridge are more likely to use it regularly, thus using the footbridge is more a habit than a random act. Statistical models of this type may help researchers understand pedestrians' attitudes better and potentially contribute to a far better design of new infrastructures or better management of existing infrastructures, considering the user's point of view.

Keywords: Footbridge; signalized crossing; questionnaire-based survey; ordinal regression model; pedestrians

Received: July 29, 2020; Revised: September 18, 2020; Accepted: October 14, 2020; Prepublished online: October 21, 2020; Published: December 17, 2020  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Ourania Skandami, M., Anapali, I.S., & Basbas, S. (2020). Choosing footbridge or signalized crossing in an urban area: what triggers pedestrians? Transactions on Transport Sciences11(3), 37-51
Download citation

References

  1. Abojaradeh, M. (2013). Evaluation of Pedestrian Bridges and Pedestrian Safety in Jordan. Civil and Environmental Research, 3.
  2. Anciaes, P. R., & Jones, P. (2018). Estimating preferences for different types of pedestrian crossing facilities. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 52, 222-237. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.025 Go to original source...
  3. Ausserer, K., & Kaufmann, C. (2010). Once a walker always a walker or 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks'-results of a mobility study of pre-school children. Presentation at ICTCT 2010, Netherlands.
  4. 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. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.008 Go to original source...
  5. Chen, Z., Fan, W. (2019). A multinomial logit model of pedestrian-vehicle crash severity in North Carolina. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 8, 43-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijtst.2018.10.001 Go to original source...
  6. Cohen, B., A., Wiles, R., & Campbell, C. (1997). Mean Streets: Pedestrian Safety and Reform of the Nation's Transportation Law. Washington, DC: Surface Transportation Policy Project.
  7. Daniel, W.W. (1999). Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis in the health sciences. 7th Edition, John Wiley &Sons, Inc., Hoboken. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20010130)20:23.0.CO;2-O Go to original source...
  8. D' Andrea, A., Carbone, F., Salviera, S., Pellegrino, O. (2012). The most influential variables in the determination of V85 speed. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences, 53, 633- 644. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.913Europa Eurostat. Road accident fatalities - statistics by type of vehicle. Go to original source...
  9. Farmer, M., C. (2016). Relationship of traffic fatality rates to maximum state speed limits. Traffic Injuryand Prevention, 18, 375-380. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2016.1213821 Go to original source...
  10. Feliciani, C., Gorrini, A., Crociani, L., Vizzari, G., Nishinari, K., Bandini, S. (2020). Calibration and validation of a simulation model for predicting pedestrian fatalities at unsignalized crosswalks by means of statistical traffic data. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 7, 1, 1-18. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2019.01.004 Go to original source...
  11. FHWA, Federal Highway Administration, (2006). How to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Final Report
  12. Fossum, M., & Ryeng, E. (2019). Pedestrians' route choice during winter conditions. Presentation at ICTCT 2019, Warszawa.
  13. Híjar, M., Vazquez-Vela, E., Arreola-Risa, C. (2003). Pedestrian traffic injuries in Mexico: a country update. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10, 37-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.10.1.37.14108 Go to original source...
  14. Hussain, Q., Feng, H., Grzebieta, R., Brijs, T., Olivier, J. (2019). The relationship between impact speed and the probability of pedestrian fatality during a vehicle-pedestrian crash: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 129, 241-249. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2019.05.033IBM SPSS® software, https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software Go to original source...
  15. ITE, Institute of Transportation Engineers, (1998). Design and safety of pedestrian facilities. TENC-5A-5, ITE, Washington DC.
  16. Kim, K., Made Brunner, I., Yamashita, E. (2008). Modeling violation of Hawaii's crosswalk law. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 894-904. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.10.004 Go to original source...
  17. Landa-Blanco, M., & Ávila, J. (2020). Factors related to the use of pedestrian bridges in university students of Honduras. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 71, Pages 220-228, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.04.016. Go to original source...
  18. Mitsutaka, K., & Toshikazu, Y. (2004). An observational study of the illegal crossing behavior of pedestrians: focusing on the effects of hurrying and habit. Jpn. J. Social Psychol. 19, 234-240. doi: https://doi.org/10.14966/jssp.KJ00003724917 Go to original source...
  19. Moore, R. L. (1953). Pedestrian choice and judgment. Operational Research Quarterly, 4, 3-10. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.1953.2 Go to original source...
  20. Moore, R. L., & Older, S. J. (1965). Pedestrians and Motors are Compatible in Today's World. Traffic Engineering, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 35.
  21. Naing, L., Winn, T., & Rusli, B.N. (2006). Practical issues in calculating the sample size for prevalence studies. Archives of Orofacial Sciences, 1, 9-14.
  22. NHTSA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2015). Traffic safety facts. Washington DC. Retrieved from https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety
  23. Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., & Scott-Parker, B. (2017). Footbridge usage in high-traffic flow highways: The intersection of safety and security in pedestrian decision-making. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 49, 177-187. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.06.010 Go to original source...
  24. Pucher, J. & Dijkstra, L. (2003). Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: lessons from The Netherlands and Germany. A Publication of the American Public Health Association, 93, 1509-16. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1509. Go to original source...
  25. Räsänen, M., Lajunen, T., Alticafarbay, F., Aydin, C. (2007). Pedestrian self-reports of factors influencing the use of pedestrian bridges. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39, 969-973. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.01.004 Go to original source...
  26. Richards, D. (2010). Relationship between Speed and Risk of Fatal Injury: Pedestrians and Car Occupants. Road Safety Web Publication No. 16
  27. Rosenbloom, T. (2009). Crossing at a red light: behaviour of individuals and groups. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 389-394. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.05.002 Go to original source...
  28. Sangphong, O., & Siridhara, S. (2014). A Study of Footbridge Utilization Behavior in Nakhon Ratchasima. Review of Integrative Business & Economic Research, 3 (NRRU). Retrieved from https://sibresearch.org/uploads/2/7/9/9/2799227/riber_h14-104_93-100.pdf
  29. Shatu, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Bunker, J. (2019). Shortest path distance vs. least directional change: Empirical testing of space syntax and geographic theories concerning pedestrian route choice behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography, 74, 37-52. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.11.005. Go to original source...
  30. Sinclair, M., & Zuidgeest, M. (2016). Investigations into pedestrian crossing choices on Cape Town freeways. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 42, 479-494. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.07.006Statistic evidence Greek Traffic Police, http://www.astynomia.gr/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=81&Itemi d=73〈=Thessaloniki, https://civitas.eu/content/thessaloniki Go to original source...
  31. Wu, Y., Lu, J., Chen, H., Wu, L. (2014). Identification of contributing factors to pedestrian overpass selection. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 1, 415-423. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-7564(15)30291-9 Go to original source...
  32. Xu, J., Ge, Y., Qu, W., Sun, X., Zhang, K. (2018). The mediating effect of traffic safety climate between pedestrian inconvenience and pedestrian behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 119, 155-161. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.07.020 Go to original source...
  33. Yordphol, T. & Qian, J. (1994). Chinese Pedestrians and Their Walking Characteristics: Case Study in Beijing. Transportation Research Record, 1441, 16-26. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1994/1441/1441-003.pdf
  34. Zacharias, J. (2001). Pedestrian behavior and perception in urban walking environments. Journal of Planning Literature, 16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/08854120122093249 Go to original source...

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.