Determining the level of service for vulnerable road users’ sidewalk

Abstract

It is well-known that urban travel for people with disabilities is fraught with difficulties. The parameters required for the disabled have been overlooked in the scientific studies so far, and the needs of disabled pedestrians have not been reflected in the existing YHD models. There is a need to consider the needs of people with disabilities when determining YHD in order to eliminate this deficiency. Pedestrians with disabilities were added to the existing service level model in this study to determine a new YHD for all pedestrians. In previous studies, results of questionnaires given to people with disabilities were examined for this purpose. The addition of the disabled pedestrian need parameters obtained from the literature to the service level calculation by using them separately increased the originality of the study. This model, which incorporates both the GYHD (General Pedestrian Service Level Model) and the EYHD (Disabled Pedestal Service Level), was developed. It was found that the model developed by Süleyman Demirel University West Campus was universally applicable due to the model's parameter limit values being based on results from international standards.

Keywords

• Disabled pedestrian
• Pedestrian service level
• Sidewalk geometry

Savunmasız yol kullanıcıları için yaya yolu hizmet düzeyinin belirlenmesi

Öz

Kent içi seyahatlerde engellilerin birçok problemle karşılaştığı bilinmektedir. Şimdiye kadar yapılmış bilimsel çalışmaların yaya hizmet düzeyi (YHD) tespiti kısmında engelliler için gerekli olan parametreler göz ardı edilmiş, engelli yayaların ihtiyaçları mevcut YHD modellerine yansıtılmamıştır. Bu eksikliği ortadan kaldırmak için YHD belirlenirken engelli kişilerinde ihtiyaçlarının dikkate alınması uygun olacaktır. Çalışmada, mevcut hizmet düzeyi modeline, engelli bireylerin seyahat ihtiyaçları eklenerek tüm yaya yol kullanıcıları için yeni bir YHD belirlenmiştir. Bunun için daha önceki çalışmalarda engelli bireylere yapılan anket sonuçları incelenmiştir. Çalışmanın özgünlüğünü arttıran kısım ise bugüne kadar yapılmış literatürden elde edilen engelli yaya ihtiyaç parametrelerinin ayrı ayrı kullanılarak hizmet düzeyi hesabına eklenmesi olmuştur. GYHD (Genel Yaya Hizmet Düzeyi Modeli), EYHD (Engelli Yaya Hizmet Düzeyi) ve bunların her ikisini de bünyesinde bulunduran yeni bir YHD modeli oluşturulmuştur. Hizmet düzeyi tespiti Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Batı Yerleşkesinde uygulanmıştır fakat, modelin parametre sınır değerlerinin literatürdeki uluslararası standartların sonuçlarına dayanması nedeniyle, bulunan modelin evrensel olarak uygulanabilir olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Engelli yaya
• Yaya hizmet düzeyi
• Yaya yolu geometrisi

Kaynakça

1. B. Landis, V. Vattikuti, R. Ottenberg, D. McLeod and M. Guttenplan, Modeling the roadside walking environment: A pedestrian level of service. Transportation Research Record, 1773(1), 82–88, 2001.
2. J.J. Fruin, Pedestrian planning and design. Metropolitan Associations of Urban Designers and Environmental Planners, New York, 1971.
3. Y. Tanaboriboon and J.A. Guyano, Level-of-service standards for pedestrian facilities in Bangkok: A case study. ITE Journal, 59(11), 39–41, 1989.
4. Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C, 2000.
5. I. Mateo-Babiano and H. Ieda, Street space sustainability in Asia: The role of the Asian pedestrian and street culture. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 6, 1915–1930, 2007.
6. R. Singh, Factors affecting walkability of neighborhoods. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 216, 643-654, 2016. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.12.048
7. K. Lautso and P. Murole, A study of pedestrian traffic in Helsinki: Methods and results. Traffic Engineering Control, 15(9), 446–449, 1974.
8. S. Sarkar, Determination of service levels for pedestrians, with European example. Transportation Research Record, 1405, 35–42, 1993.

9. C.J. Khisty, Evaluation of pedestrian facilities: Beyond the level-of-service concept. Transportation Research Record 1438, 45–50, 1994.
10. P.N. Seneviratne and J.F. Morrall, Level of service on pedestrian facilities. Transportation Quarterly., 39(1), 109–123, 1985a.
11. C. Henson, Levels of service for pedestrians. ITE Journal, 70(9), 26–30, 2000.
12. G.P. Benz, Pedestrian time-space concept: A new approach to the planning and design of pedestrian facilities, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, New York, 1986.
13. B. Pushkarev and J.M. Zupan, Urban space for pedestrians: A report of the regional plan association, MIT Press, Cambridge, 127–129, 1975.
14. W.H.K. Lam, J.F. Morrall and H. Ho, Pedestrian flow characteristics in Hong Kong. Transportation Research Record 1487, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 56–62, 1995.
15. L. Dixon, Bicycle and pedestrian level-of-service performance measures and standards for congestion management systems. Transportation Research Record 1538, 1–9, 1996.
16. S. Jensen, Pedestrian and bicycle level of service on roadway segments. Transportation Research Record 2031, 43–51, 2007.
17. S. Sarkar, Qualitative evaluation of comfort needs in urban walkways in major activity centers. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2002.
18. J.Y.S. Lee and W.H.K. Lam, Levels of service for stairway in Hong Kong underground stations. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 129(2), 196–202,2003.
19. Z. Asadi-Shekari, M.,Moeinaddini and M. Zaly Shah, Disabled pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting inclusive walking facilities on urban streets. Journal of Transportation Engineering, 139(2), 181-192, 2013.
20. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (NCHRP), Multimodal level of service analysis for urban streets. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008.
21. T.A. Petritsch, et al., Pedestrian level-of-service model for urban arterial facilities with sidewalks. Transportation Research Record, 2006.
22. J.S. Miller, J. Bigelow and N.J. Garber, Calibrating pedestrian level-of-service metrics with 3-D visualization. Transportation Research Record 1705(1), 9–15, 2000.
23. D. Mozer, Calculating multi-mode levels-of-service. International Bicycle Fund, Seattle, WA, 1994.
24. N. Gallin, Quantifying pedestrian friendliness—guidelines for assessing pedestrian level of service. Road & Transport Research, 10(1), 47, 2001.
25. P.N. Seneviratne and J.F. Morrall, Analysis of factors affecting the choice of route of pedestrians. Transportation Planning and Technology, 10(2), 147–159, 1985b.
26. M. Saplioglu and A. Ünal, Yürüme engelli bireyler için kentiçi ulaşımda güzergâh iyileştirme önerisi: pilot bölge çalışması. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi, 10(1), 289-299, 2019.
27. M.Ü. Çilek, Kamusal Alanlara Erişimde Optimum Yaya Güzergâhı Konforunu Belirlemeye Yönelik Kavramsal Bir Yaklaşım. Megaron, 15(3), 2020.
28. S. Handy and K. Clifton, Evaluating neighborhood accessibility: Possibilities and practicalities. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, 4(2/3), 67–78, 2001.
29. C. Jim and S.S. Chen, Comprehensive greenspace planning based on landscape ecology principles in compact Nanjing city, China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65(3), 95-116, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0169-2046(02)00244-X
30. A. Van Herzele and T. Wiedemann, A monitoring tool for the provision of accessible and attractive urban green spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 63(2), 109-126, 2003.
31. E. Shay, S. Spoon and A. Khattak, Walkable environments and walking activity. Report to the Southeastern Transportation Center, 1-20, 2003.
32. C. Collins, M. H., Ng, K. Broomhall, R.J. Donovan, A. Lange, M. Knuiman, and K. Douglas, Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space?. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2), 169-176, 2005.
33. A. Barnett and E. Cerin, Individual calibration for estimating free-living walking speed using the MTI monitor. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38(4), 761-767, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1249/ 01.mss.0000210206.55941.b2
34. Ş. Hepcan, M.B. Özkan, A. Kaplan, E.V. Küçükerbaş, B. Kara, B. Deniz and İ. Altuğ, Yaya erişiminde süreklilik sorunu ve çözüm olanaklarının Bornova Kent Merkezi örneğinde araştırılması. 43(2), 121–132, 2006.
35. B. Gültekin and M.F. Altunkasa, Kent içi yolların yaya kullanımına yönelik değerlendirilmesinde çözümlemeli bir yaklaşım: Adana örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, 17(3), 2008.
36. X. Zhu and C. Lee, Walkability and safety around elementary schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 282-290, 2008. https://doi.org /10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.024
37. T. Sugiyama and C. Ward Thompson, Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people’s walking. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 7(1), 41–51, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ufug.2007.12.002
38. D. Van Dyck, B. Deforche, G. Cardon, and I. De Bourdeaudhuij, Neighbourhood walkability and its particular importance for adults with a preference for passive transport. Health & Place, 15(2), 496-504, 2009.
39. C. Millington, C. Ward Thompson, D. Rowe, P. Aspinall, C. Fitzsimons, N. Nelson and N. Mutrie, Development of the scottish walkability assessment tool (SWAT). Health & Place, 15(2), 474-481, 2009.
40. J. Schipperijn, O. Ekholm, U.K. Stigsdotter, M. Toftager, P. Bentsen, F. Kamper-Jørgensen and T.B. Randrup, Factors influencing the use of green space: Results from a Danish national representative survey. Landscape and Urban Planning, 95(3), 130-137, 2010.
41. C.E. Kelly, M.R. Tight, F.C. Hodgson, F.C and M.W. Page, A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(6), 1500-1508, 2011.
42. M. Moniruzzaman and A. Páez, A model-based approach to select case sites for walkability audits. Health & Place, 18(6), 1323-1334, 2012.
43. D.B. Bhattacharyya and S. Mitra, Making siliguri a walkable city. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 96, 2737-2744, 2013. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.307
44. W.M. Wey and Y.H. Chiu, Assessing the walkability of pedestrian environment under the transit-oriented development. Habitat International, 38, 106-118, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.05.004
45. M. Ünal, Aktif yeşil alanların rekreasyonel hizmet etkinliğinin saptanması: Çukurova ilçesi örneği. Çukurova Üniversitesi Peyzaj Mimarlığı Anabilim Dalı, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Türkiye. 496, 2014.
46. J. Zakaria, N. Ujang, Comfort of walking in the city center of Kuala Lumpur. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 170, 642-652, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.066
47. E. Cubukcu, B. Hepguzel, Z. Onder and B. Tumer, Active living for sustainable future: A model to measure “walk scores” via geographic Iinformation systems. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 229–237, 2015. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.228
48. W. Erna and S.L. Amin, Convenience component of walkability in Malang City case study the street corridors around city squares. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 227, 587-592, 2016.
49. K. Singh and P.K. Jain, Methods of assessing pedestrian level of service. Journal of Engineering Research and Studies, 2(1), 116–124, 2011.
50. M. Aghaabbasi, M. Moeinaddini, M. Zaly Shah and Z. Asadi-Shekari, A new assessment model to evaluate the microscale sidewalk design factors at the neighbourhood level. Journal of Transport & Health, 5, 97-112, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth. 2016.08.012
51. F. Moura, P. Cambra, and A.B. Gonçalves, Measuring walkability for distinct pedestrian groups with a participatory assessment method: A case study in Lisbon. Landscape and Urban Planning, 157, 282-296, 2017.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.07.002
52. R. Rafiemanzelat, M.I. Emadi and A.J. Kamali, City sustainability: the influence of walkability on built environments. Transportation Research Procedia, 24, 97-104, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.trpro.2017.05.074
53. M. Aghaabbasi, M. Moeinaddini, M. Zaly Shah, Z. Asadi-Shekari and M. Arjomand Kermani, Evaluating the capability of walkability audit tools for assessing sidewalks. Sustainable Cities and Society, 37, 475-484, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.001
54. A. Gharebaghi, M.A. Mostafavi, S. Chavoshi, G. Edwards and P. Fougeyrollas, The role of social factors in the accessibility of urban areas for people with motor disabilities, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7(4), 131, 2018.
55. M. Unal and C. Uslu, Evaluating and optimizing urban green spaces for compact urban areas: Cukurova district in Adana, Turkey. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(2), 70, 2018. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/ijgi7020070
56. M. Aghaabbasi, M. Moeinaddini, Z. Asadi-Shekari and M.Z. Shah, The equitable use concept in sidewalk design. Cities, 88, 181-190, 2019. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cities.2018.10.010
57. K. Shaaban, Assessing sidewalk and corridor walkability in developing countries. Sustainability, 11(14), 3865, 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ su11143865
58. A.A. Zuniga-Teran, P. Stoker, R.H. Gimblett, B.J. Orr, S.E. Marsh, D.P. Guertin and N.V. Chalfoun, Exploring the influence of neighborhood walkability on the frequency of use of greenspace. Landscape and Urban Planning, 190, 2019.
59. Özida (Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı), Herkes için ulaşılabilirliğin iyileş- tirilmesi: örnek uygulama rehberi, Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı, 48, Ankara, 2008.
60. Özida (Başbakanlık Özürlüler İdaresi Başkanlığı), Yerel yönetimler için ulaşılabilirlik temel bilgiler teknik el kitabı, 49, Ankara, 2010.
61. E. Maraz, Özürlülerin kent içinde erişebilirliğini etkileyen standartlar; (Mecidiköy ve Yenibosna metrobüs duraklarının incelenmesi, Yüksek lisans tezi, İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, İstanbul, 2009.
62. B. Sirel, O. Boyacıgil, M. Duymuş, N. Konaklı, F. Altunkasa and C. Uslu, Çukurova Üniversitesi yerleşkesi açık alanlarının fiziksel engelliler bakımından ulaşılabilirliğinin değerlendirilmesi. Çukurova University Journal of the Faculty of Engineering and Architecture 27(1), 53-72, 2012.
63. N. Kuter and M. Çakmak, Kamusal dış mekanlarda engelliler için tasarım: Ankara, Seğmenler Parkı örneği, Anadolu Orman Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 93-110, 2017.
64. C. Koca, Engelsiz şehir planlama bilgilendirme rapor, İstanbul: Dünya Engelliler Vakfı, 2010.
65. Türk Standartları Enstitüsü (TSE), Şehir İçi Yollar – Özürlü ve Yaşlılar İçin Sokak, Cadde, Meydan ve Yollarda Yapısal Önlemler ve İşaretlemelerin Tasarım Kuralları. Hazırlık Grubu: Şehir İçi Yollar Özel Daimi Komitesi, TS No:12576, 1999.
66. R. Tiyek, B.H. Eryiğit and B.A. Emrah, Engellilerin erişilebilirlik sorunu ve tse standartlari çerçevesinde bir araştirma. Kastamonu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(2), 225-261, 2016.
67. ADAAG, American disability act accessibility guideline, ABD Standards, Washington, 2004.
68. L. Güremen, Kent kimliği ve estetiği yönüyle kentsel donatı elemanlarının Amasya Kenti özelinde araştırılması. Social Sciences, 6(2), 254-291, 2011.