Evaluation Model for the Level of Service of Shared-Use Paths Based on Traffic Conflicts
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Data Definition
- (1)
- All conflict events only consider the overtaking (meeting) events occurring in adjacent lanes (1 m is specified as the width of a single lane). For several traffic entities that overtake (meet) in parallel at the same time, it is considered that the overtaking (meeting) events will not affect them. Overtaking (meeting) traffic users on one side of adjacent lanes is counted as a conflict event (Figure 2a).
- (2)
- Figure 2b shows that overtaking (meeting) traffic entities in adjacent lanes on both sides is regarded as two conflicting events.
- (3)
- If the overtaking (meeting) event occurs at a lateral distance greater than l meter, the number of events is not counted (Figure 2c).
2.2. Data Investigation
2.2.1. Data Interpretation
2.2.2. Investigation Scheme
- (1)
- Investigation period
- (2)
- Source of data
2.2.3. Data Statistics
- (1)
- Select typical sections in each road section and take 5 min as a statistical interval, and then obtain the two-way pedestrian, bicycle, and electric bicycle traffic flow on shared-use paths from 7:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. Finally, we need to extend the short-time traffic in 5 min to hourly traffic.
- (2)
- Taking the bicycle as the test vehicle, the tester rode continuously at 5-min intervals during the investigation and recorded the corresponding real-time traffic operation through the camera, so as to obtain the number of traffic conflict among pedestrians, bicycles, and electric vehicles (Table 3).
2.3. Data Processing
2.3.1. Traffic Composition Analysis
2.3.2. Data Classification
- (1)
- Bicycle hourly flow rate Qcb distribution has a minimum interval of [0, 100], a maximum interval of [800, 900], and a step size of 100, which are divided into 9 groups.
- (2)
- The minimum and maximum interval of pedestrian flow Qp rates are [0, 100] and [900–1000], respectively, with a step size of 100, which are split into 10 groups.
- (3)
- The minimum interval of the total flow rate Q of the road section is [200, 400], the maximum interval is [3400, 3600], and the step size is 200, which are divided into 17 groups.
2.4. Fuzzy Cluster Analysis
2.4.1. Classification Index
2.4.2. Data Standardization
2.4.3. Fuzzy Similarity Matrix
2.4.4. Fuzzy Similarity Equivalent Matrix
3. Results
3.1. Clustering Results
3.2. Research on Service Levels Corresponding to Conflict Events in Each Catagory
- (1)
- Riding freedom: According to the descending order of riding freedom, it can be divided into free riding, basic free riding, restrictive riding, and obstructive riding. Among them, free riding means that the rider can freely choose the riding route and riding speed, and overtaking (meeting) events can occur; restricted riding means that the rider’s behavior of choosing the route, speed, and overtaking (meeting) is limited to some extent; obstructive riding means that riders cannot freely choose riding routes, riding speeds, overtaking (meeting) events, and other behaviors.
- (2)
- Comfort degree: It is a comprehensive index to express riding comfort, which is divided into comfortable, relatively comfortable, normal feeling, uncomfortable, and very uncomfortable according to the descending order of comfortable degree.
- (3)
- Smooth degree: According to the order of smooth degree of road sections from big to small, it can be divided into smooth, relatively smooth, and not smooth.
3.3. Optimized Classification
- (1)
- Give full consideration to the continuity and integrity of the number of events.
- (2)
- Avoid situation where the number of incidents is similar but the service level is very different, or the number of incidents is very different but the service level is similar. We need to combine and adjust the data intervals with similar traffic conditions.
- (3)
- Avoid abrupt changes in service levels between adjacent grades and similar service levels between different grades.
3.4. Application of Service Level Evaluation Model
- (1)
- Slow traffic space does not meet the set conditions: When the road section width is less than 2.5 m (two lanes), the width of independent sidewalks or non-motor vehicle lanes cannot meet the minimum traffic space requirements, and the traffic efficiency and comfort are low.
- (2)
- The road section needs to meet certain traffic conditions: When the traffic flow of the road section is low, the proportion of pedestrians and non-motor vehicles is unbalanced or the distribution in peak hours is not synchronized, the sharing management model is more conducive to the effective use of road resources, and separation is not recommended. Therefore, the process of judging the setting conditions of isolation facilities in shared-use paths is given (Figure 3).
- (1)
- Find out the exact conditions of road sections, such as road width, effective width, length of road section, traffic volume, and composition of traffic mode. Then, it is judged whether the width of the road section is larger than 2.5.
- (2)
- If the width is less than 2.5 m, it is not recommended to set up pedestrian and non-motor vehicle separation facilities on the shared roads. Otherwise, it is necessary to judge the service level of road sections and further determine whether it is necessary to set up separation facilities.
- (3)
- Determine the number of bicycle conflict events on the road section, find out the corresponding event interval, and determine the corresponding service level according to Table 8. Then, judge whether the service level is Grade 4 or lower. If it belongs to Grade 4 or below, the sidewalks must be separated from non-motor vehicle lane. Otherwise, it is recommended not to divide shared lanes.
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Data Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 900 | 900 | 900 | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 650 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 350 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 17.0 | 10.8 | 8.2 | 24.4 | 24.6 | 16.4 | 24.3 | 25.4 | 17.8 | 21.4 | |
Data Number | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 450 | 450 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 650 | 650 | 750 | 750 | 850 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 350 | |
Qp (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 550 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 250 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 450 | 550 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 22.9 | 28.0 | 27.7 | 21.9 | 23.9 | 26.7 | 24.3 | 22.1 | 27.1 | 25.1 | |
Data Number | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | |
Q (units/h) | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 850 | 950 | 850 | 950 | 1050 | 1050 | 1050 | 1150 | 1150 | 1150 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 450 | 450 | 250 | 350 | 450 | 250 | 250 | 350 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 50 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 16.5 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 18.4 | 26.1 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 28.6 | 27.6 | 21.4 | |
Data Number | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 5 | 5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1500 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 700 | 700 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 1150 | 950 | 950 | 950 | 1050 | 1050 | 1150 | 1150 | 350 | 350 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 450 | 450 | 350 | 450 | 350 | 450 | 150 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 150 | 50 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 21.2 | 28.0 | 22.9 | 21.0 | 26.4 | 24.1 | 25.2 | 20.1 | 1.2 | 1.0 | |
Data Number | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Q (units/h) | 700 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 450 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 750 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 0.7 | 7.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 15.2 | 6.8 | 6.7 | 13.5 | 10.6 | |
Data Number | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 550 | 550 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 750 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 450 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 250 | 350 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 250 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 10.9 | 12.7 | 11.1 | 20.4 | 7.6 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 15.3 | 13.7 | 14.1 | |
Data Number | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1500 | 1500 | 700 | 700 | 700 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 1100 | 1100 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 750 | 750 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 450 | 550 | 450 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 250 | 350 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 250 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 14.8 | 14.2 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 6.3 | 0.7 | 0.3 | 12.3 | 5.0 | |
Data Number | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 550 | 650 | 750 | 550 | 550 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 450 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 5.3 | 5.4 | 12.5 | 8.8 | 10.2 | 14.3 | 12.6 | 14.0 | 13.7 | 6.0 | |
Data Number | 81 | 82 | 83 | ||||||||
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | ||||||||
Q (units/h) | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | ||||||||
Qeb (units/h) | 750 | 750 | 750 | ||||||||
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 250 | ||||||||
Qp (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 350 | ||||||||
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 150 | ||||||||
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 12.5 | 13.3 | 15.4 |
Data Number | 39 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 67 | 68 | |
Parameters | ||||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 700 | 700 | 700 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 700 | 700 | 700 | 900 | 900 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 |
Data Number | 47 | 48 | 66 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 80 | |
Parameters | ||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1100 | 1100 | 900 | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 550 | 550 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 650 | 650 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 450 | |
Qp (units/h) | 50 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 6.8 | 6.7 | 6.3 | 5.0 | 5.3 | 5.4 | 6.0 |
Data Number | 3 | 42 | 55 | 74 | |
Parameters | |||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 900 | 900 | 1500 | 1300 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 450 | 650 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 350 | 150 | 450 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 150 | 250 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 50 | 250 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 8.2 | 7.6 | 7.6 | 8.8 |
Data Number | 2 | 50 | 51 | 53 | 75 | |
Parameters | ||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 900 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 550 | 550 | 650 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 350 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 10.8 | 10.6 | 10.9 | 11.1 | 10.2 |
Data Number | 1 | 6 | 9 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 46 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 5 | |
Q (units/h) | 900 | 1100 | 1300 | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1100 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 550 | 550 | 850 | 950 | 850 | 950 | 1050 | 1050 | 450 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 450 | 350 | 450 | 150 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 17.0 | 16.4 | 17.8 | 16.5 | 17.0 | 17.0 | 18.4 | 19.3 | 18.8 | 15.2 | |
Data Number | 49 | 52 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 69 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1100 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1100 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 750 | 550 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 750 | 750 | 750 | 450 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 150 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 13.5 | 12.7 | 15.3 | 16.1 | 15.3 | 13.7 | 14.1 | 14.8 | 14.2 | 12.3 | |
Data Number | 73 | 76 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 81 | 82 | 83 | |||
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |||
Q (units/h) | 1100 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | |||
Qeb (units/h) | 750 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 650 | 750 | 750 | 750 | |||
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |||
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 350 | |||
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 350 | 150 | 250 | 150 | |||
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 12.5 | 14.3 | 12.6 | 14.0 | 13.7 | 12.5 | 13.3 | 15.4 |
Data Number | 10 | 14 | 18 | 30 | 31 | 34 | 38 | 54 | |
Parameters | |||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1300 | 1500 | 1700 | 1500 | 1500 | 1700 | 1700 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 650 | 550 | 750 | 1150 | 1150 | 950 | 1150 | 650 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 250 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 450 | 150 | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 50 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 350 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 350 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 250 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 21.4 | 21.9 | 22.1 | 21.4 | 21.2 | 21.0 | 20.1 | 20.4 |
Data Number | 4 | 5 | 7 | 8 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 16 | 17 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 450 | 450 | 450 | 550 | 650 | 650 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 350 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 350 | 350 | 550 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 250 | 250 | 350 | 250 | 450 | 550 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 24.4 | 24.6 | 24.3 | 25.4 | 22.9 | 28.0 | 27.7 | 23.9 | 26.7 | 24.3 | |
Data Number | 19 | 20 | 25 | 28 | 29 | 32 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 37 | |
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 3.6 | |
Q (units/h) | 1700 | 1700 | 1500 | 1500 | 1500 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | 1700 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 750 | 850 | 1050 | 1150 | 1150 | 950 | 950 | 1050 | 1050 | 1150 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 350 | 450 | 350 | 450 | 350 | |
Qp (units/h) | 350 | 250 | 250 | 50 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 50 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 27.1 | 25.1 | 26.1 | 28.6 | 27.6 | 28.0 | 22.9 | 26.4 | 24.1 | 25.2 |
References
- Washington, D. Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Beura, S.K.; Kumar, K.V.; Suman, S.; Bhuyan, P.K. Service quality analysis of signalized intersections from the perspective of bicycling. J. Transp. Heal. 2020, 16, 100827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okon, I.E.; Moreno, C.A. Bicycle Level of Service Model for the Cycloruta, Bogota, Colombia. Rom. J. Transp. Infrastruct. 2019, 8, 1–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, Z.; Hu, Y.; Ma, L. Parameter optimization of bicycle network aiming at improving service level. J. Hebei Univ. Eng. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2020, 37, 45–52. [Google Scholar]
- Dai, Y.; Zhao, X.; Lin, J.; Li, X. Study on Service Level of Urban Bicycle Sections. J. Chang’an Univ. (Nat. Sci. Ed.) 2015, 35, 26–31. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, Q.; Homma, R.; Iki, K. Utilizing Bicycle Compatibility Index and Bicycle Level of Service for Cycleway networks. Proc. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 259, 03005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, H.; Dai, J.; Lin, J.; Zhao, X. Research on Applicability of Typical Models of Bicycle Road Service Level. Urban Geogr. 2015, 24, 16–17. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, X. Study on Urban Bicycle Road Service Level; Beijing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture: Beijing, China, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Griswold, J.B.; Yu, M.; Filingeri, V.; Grembek, O.; Walker, J.L. A behavioral modeling approach to bicycle level of service. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2018, 116, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Dai, J.; Yang, Q.; Yuan, G. Study on Service Level of Urban Bicycle Road Section—A Case Study of CBD Area. J. Beijing Jianzhu Univ. 2016, 32, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
- Kazemzadeh, K.; Laureshyn, A.; Hiselius, L.W.; Ronchi, E. Expanding the Scope of the Bicycle Level-of-Service Concept: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Li, Y. Method for determining service level and design parameters of bicycle lanes based on simulation. Chang. Univ. Sci. Technol. 2019, 2140, 157–164. [Google Scholar]
- Li, F. Study on the Capacity and Service Level of Bicycles on Urban Roads in China. China Munic. Eng. 1995, 4, 11–14. [Google Scholar]
- Li, Y.; Zhang, S.; Huang, Z. Research on Safety Evaluation of Bicycle Lane Based on User’s Psychological Space. Traffic Sci. Eng. 2018, 34, 91–97. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, D.; Davis, W.J. Review of Basic Research in Bicycle Traffic Science, Traffic Operations, and Facility Design. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1999, 1674, 102–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shan, X. Study on the Share Rate of Urban Bicycle Traffic Reasonable Mode and the Allocation of Road Resources. Ph.D. Thesis, Southeast University, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, D.; Zhang, S.-R.; Zhou, B.; Jiao, S.; Yang, L. Risk Perception Sensitivity of Cyclists Based on the Cox Risk Perception Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Nag, D.; Goswami, A.K.; Gupta, A.; Sen, J. Assessing urban sidewalk networks based on three constructs: A synthesis of pedestrian level of service literature. Transp. Rev. 2019, 40, 204–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marisamynathan, S.; Vedagiri, P. Modeling Pedestrian Level of Service at Signalized Intersection Under Mixed Traffic Conditions. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2017, 2634, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepolina, E.M.; Menichini, F.; Rojas, P.G. Level of service of pedestrian facilities: Modelling human comfort perception in the evaluation of pedestrian behaviour patterns. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 58, 365–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sahani, R.; Bhuyan, P.K. Pedestrian level of service criteria for urban off-street facilities in mid-sized cities. Transport 2014, 32, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Amprasi, V.; Politis, I.; Nikiforiadis, A.; Basbas, S. Comparing the microsimulated pedestrian level of service with the users’ perception: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece, coastal front. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 572–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cepolina, E.M.; Menichini, F.; Rojas, P.G. Pedestrian Level of Service: The Impact of Social Groups on Pedestrian Flow Characteristics. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 2017, 12, 839–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sisiopiku, V.P.; Akin, D. Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: An examination based on observation and survey data. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2003, 6, 249–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lowry, M.B.; Callister, D.; Gresham, M.; Moore, B. Assessment of Communitywide Bikeability with Bicycle Level of Service. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2012, 2314, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frazila, R.B.; Zukhruf, F.; Simorangkir, C.O.; Burhani, J.T. Constructing pedestrian level of service based on the perspective of visual impairment person. Proc. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 270, 03009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Virkler, M.R.; Balasubramanian, R. Flow Characteristics on Shared Hiking/Biking/Jogging Trails. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 1998, 1636, 43–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hummer, J.E.; Patten, R.S.; Rouphail, N.M.; Schneider, R.J.; Toole, J.L. Evaluation of Safety, Design, and Operation of Shared-Use Paths; Techbrief: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Zhi-quan, X. Link Operational Characteristics and Resources Optimization Allocation of Bicycle-Pedestrian Shared-Use Paths. D; Southeast University: Nanjing, China, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, Y.; Jun, C.; Zhiquan, X. Level of Service Model on Urban Cycle-Pedestrian Shared Road. Urban Transp. China 2012, 1, 14. [Google Scholar]
- Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Zaly-Shah, M.; Niu, Z. Discussion on Service Level of Non-motorized Transportation Mode—Response to Evaluation of Service Level of Walking and Bicycle. Urban Commun. 2014, 12, 77–94. [Google Scholar]
- Fan, W. Advantages, disadvantages and applicable conditions of pedestrian-non-motor vehicle shared roads in urban roads. Sci. Technol. Innov. Her. 2010, 20, 100. [Google Scholar]
- Botma, H.; Papendrecht, H. Traffic Operation of Bicycle Transporting; Transportation Research Record 1320, TRB; National Research Council: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Smith, D.T. Research on Safety and Locational Criteria for Bicycle Facilities. In Bicycle/Pedestrian Planning & Design; ASCE: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; pp. 134–142. [Google Scholar]
- Washington, D. Highway Capacity Manual; Transportation Research Board, National Research Council: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, J.; Zhi-quan, X. Cycle traffic conflict model on urban pedestrian-bicycle paths. J. Jilin Univ. 2009, 39, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
- Shanshan, Y. The Research on Operational Characteristics and Solation Facilities Application of Shared-Use Paths. D; Southeast University: Nanjing, China, 2015. [Google Scholar]
Data Type | Data Content | Acquisition Method |
---|---|---|
Static Data | The width of shared-use paths | Tape measure |
The width of road sections | ||
Dynamic Data | Traffic composition | Video recording or manual counting |
Traffic flow in all modes | ||
Traffic conflict events |
Road Number | Road Name | Road Grade | Width (m) | Section Length (m) | Road Surrounding Environment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Jinxiang River Road (East Side) | Secondary trunk road | 3.5 | 195 | Hotels, schools, and military regions |
2 | Zhujiang Road (north side) | Main road | 5 | 205 | Electronics, business |
3 | Beijing East Road (south side) | Main road | 3.6 | 334 | Leisure and entertainment |
4 | Taiping North Road (East Side) | Main road | 5.5 | 167 | Business, entertainment |
Main Object of Conflict | Conflict Type |
---|---|
Pedestrians | Overtaken by bicycles |
Overtaken by electric vehicles | |
Meeting opposite pedestrians | |
Meeting opposite bicycles | |
Meeting opposite electric vehicles | |
Bicycles | Overtaking pedestrians |
Overtaking bicycles | |
Overtaken by electric vehicles | |
Meeting opposite pedestrians | |
Electric vehicles | Overtaking pedestrians |
Overtaking bicycles | |
Overtaking electric vehicles | |
Meeting opposite pedestrians |
Data Number | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | … | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameters | |||||||||||
W (m) | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | 3.5 | … | |
Q (units/h) | 900 | 900 | 900 | 1100 | 1100 | 1100 | 1300 | 1300 | 1500 | … | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 550 | 450 | … | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 350 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | … | |
Qp (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 350 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 350 | … | |
Q’p (units/h) | 150 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 350 | 250 | 450 | … | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 17.0 | 10.8 | 8.2 | 24.4 | 24.6 | 16.4 | 24.3 | 25.4 | 22.9 | … |
Conflict Number Interval | Category |
---|---|
[0.18, 1.28] | 1 |
[5.03, 6.77] | 2 |
[7.59, 8.79] | 3 |
[10.19, 11.06] | 4 |
[12.34, 19.27] | 5 |
[20.05, 22.14] | 6 |
[22.90, 22.91] | 7 |
[23.92, 28.59] | 8 |
Data Number | 39 | 40 | 41 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 67 | 68 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Parameters | ||||||||||||
W (m) | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | 5.5 | |
Q (units/h) | 700 | 700 | 700 | 900 | 900 | 900 | 700 | 700 | 700 | 900 | 900 | |
Qeb (units/h) | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | 550 | 350 | 350 | 350 | 450 | 550 | |
Qcb (units/h) | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 150 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | |
Qp (units/h) | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 50 | 150 | |
Q’p (units/h) | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 250 | 150 | 50 | 50 | 150 | 150 | 150 | |
Bicycle conflict events (pieces) | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.3 |
Category | Conflict Number Interval | Traffic Load (V/C) | State Description |
---|---|---|---|
1 | [0.18, 1.28] | [0.27, 0.38] | Free riding, basically without interference, cyclists feel comfortable and the road condition is smooth |
2 | [5.03, 6.77] | [0.34, 0.57] | Basic free riding, with little interference, cyclists feel normal, and the road condition is relatively smooth |
3 | [7.59, 8.79] | [0.40, 0.67] | Restricted riding, with much interference, cyclists feel uncomfortable, and the road is not smooth |
4 | [10.19, 11.06] | [0.52, 0.58] | Restricted riding, with much interference, cyclists feel uncomfortable, and the road is not smooth |
5 | [12.34, 19.27] | [0.44, 0.97] | Restricted riding, with great interference, cyclists feel uncomfortable, and the road is not smooth |
6 | [20.05, 22.14] | [0.61, 1.03] | Restricted riding, serious interference, cyclists feel very uncomfortable, and the road is not smooth |
7 | [22.90, 28.59] | [0.70, 1.08] | Obstructive riding, serious interference, cyclists feel very uncomfortable, the road is not smooth |
Service Level Grade | Event Number Range | State Description |
---|---|---|
Level 1 | [0, 2.5) | Riding freely, basically without interference, cyclists feel comfortable and the road condition is smooth |
Level 2 | [2.5, 5.0) | Riding freely, with little interference, cyclists feel more comfortable and the road condition is smooth |
Grade 3 | [5.0, 7.0) | Riding is basically free, with little interference, cyclists feel comfortable and the road condition is smooth |
Level 4 | [7.0, 12.0) | Restricted riding, with much interference, and cyclists feel uncomfortable and the road condition is not smooth |
Grade 5 | [11.0, 20.0) | Restricted riding, with great interference, cyclists feel uncomfortable and the road condition is not smooth |
Grade 6 | [20.0, +∞) | Restricted riding, serious interference, cyclists feel very uncomfortable and the road condition is not smooth |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wang, W.; Sun, Z.; Wang, L.; Yu, S.; Chen, J. Evaluation Model for the Level of Service of Shared-Use Paths Based on Traffic Conflicts. Sustainability 2020, 12, 7578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187578
Wang W, Sun Z, Wang L, Yu S, Chen J. Evaluation Model for the Level of Service of Shared-Use Paths Based on Traffic Conflicts. Sustainability. 2020; 12(18):7578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187578
Chicago/Turabian StyleWang, Wei, Zhentian Sun, Liya Wang, Shanshan Yu, and Jun Chen. 2020. "Evaluation Model for the Level of Service of Shared-Use Paths Based on Traffic Conflicts" Sustainability 12, no. 18: 7578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187578
APA StyleWang, W., Sun, Z., Wang, L., Yu, S., & Chen, J. (2020). Evaluation Model for the Level of Service of Shared-Use Paths Based on Traffic Conflicts. Sustainability, 12(18), 7578. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187578