您的过街体验如何?制定行人对无信号灯路口满意度量表

Seth LaJeunesse, Wesley Kumfer, Sirisha Kothuri, Krista Nordback, Nathan McNeil
{"title":"您的过街体验如何?制定行人对无信号灯路口满意度量表","authors":"Seth LaJeunesse, Wesley Kumfer, Sirisha Kothuri, Krista Nordback, Nathan McNeil","doi":"10.1177/03611981241271598","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unsignalized pedestrian crossing accommodations can improve pedestrian safety, yet their quality of service for pedestrians remains understudied. The present study explored whether and how pedestrians’ satisfaction with crossing unsignalized crossings varied according to the type of crossing accommodation used, that is, the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) with median island, median island alone, marked crosswalk, and unmarked crosswalk. The research team collected intercept survey and video observation data from 358 pedestrians across a total of 40 sites in two different cities. Structural equation models illustrated how pedestrians’ crossing-oriented satisfaction was shaped by their positive perceptions of safety and low levels of delay in the act of crossing the street. Crossing satisfaction also varied by unsignalized crossing accommodation type. Pedestrians perceived RRFBs with medians and median islands by themselves as comparably safer, more time efficient, and thus more satisfying than marked crosswalks without RRFBs or raised medians or at unmarked crosswalks. These findings could inform efforts to provide higher quality of service to pedestrians.","PeriodicalId":517391,"journal":{"name":"Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How was your Crossing Experience? Development of a Pedestrian Satisfaction with Unsignalized Crossings Scale\",\"authors\":\"Seth LaJeunesse, Wesley Kumfer, Sirisha Kothuri, Krista Nordback, Nathan McNeil\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03611981241271598\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Unsignalized pedestrian crossing accommodations can improve pedestrian safety, yet their quality of service for pedestrians remains understudied. The present study explored whether and how pedestrians’ satisfaction with crossing unsignalized crossings varied according to the type of crossing accommodation used, that is, the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) with median island, median island alone, marked crosswalk, and unmarked crosswalk. The research team collected intercept survey and video observation data from 358 pedestrians across a total of 40 sites in two different cities. Structural equation models illustrated how pedestrians’ crossing-oriented satisfaction was shaped by their positive perceptions of safety and low levels of delay in the act of crossing the street. Crossing satisfaction also varied by unsignalized crossing accommodation type. Pedestrians perceived RRFBs with medians and median islands by themselves as comparably safer, more time efficient, and thus more satisfying than marked crosswalks without RRFBs or raised medians or at unmarked crosswalks. These findings could inform efforts to provide higher quality of service to pedestrians.\",\"PeriodicalId\":517391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board\",\"volume\":\"45 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241271598\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03611981241271598","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

无信号灯行人过街设施可以提高行人安全,但其对行人的服务质量仍未得到充分研究。本研究探讨了行人对通过无信号灯人行横道的满意度是否以及如何根据所使用的过街设施类型(即带中间岛的矩形快速闪烁信号灯(RRFB)、仅中间岛、有标志人行横道和无标志人行横道)而有所不同。研究小组在两个不同城市的 40 个地点收集了 358 名行人的拦截调查和视频观察数据。结构方程模型说明了行人的过街满意度是如何由他们对安全的积极看法和过街行为的低延迟水平决定的。过街满意度还因无信号过街设施类型而异。行人认为,与不带 RRFB 或高架中线的有标志人行横道或无标志人行横道相比,带中线和中线岛的 RRFB 本身更安全、更省时,因此也更令人满意。这些发现可以为向行人提供更高质量的服务提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How was your Crossing Experience? Development of a Pedestrian Satisfaction with Unsignalized Crossings Scale
Unsignalized pedestrian crossing accommodations can improve pedestrian safety, yet their quality of service for pedestrians remains understudied. The present study explored whether and how pedestrians’ satisfaction with crossing unsignalized crossings varied according to the type of crossing accommodation used, that is, the rectangular rapid-flashing beacon (RRFB) with median island, median island alone, marked crosswalk, and unmarked crosswalk. The research team collected intercept survey and video observation data from 358 pedestrians across a total of 40 sites in two different cities. Structural equation models illustrated how pedestrians’ crossing-oriented satisfaction was shaped by their positive perceptions of safety and low levels of delay in the act of crossing the street. Crossing satisfaction also varied by unsignalized crossing accommodation type. Pedestrians perceived RRFBs with medians and median islands by themselves as comparably safer, more time efficient, and thus more satisfying than marked crosswalks without RRFBs or raised medians or at unmarked crosswalks. These findings could inform efforts to provide higher quality of service to pedestrians.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信