International Journal of Civil Engineering

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00451-0 (0123456789().,-volV)(0123456789().
,- volV)

RESEARCH PAPER

Empirical Study on Pedestrian Signal Design and Compliance

in the State of Qatar
Deepti Muley1 • Mohamed Kharbeche1 • Wael K. M. Alhajyaseen1 • Mohammed Al-Salem2

Received: 16 August 2018 / Revised: 1 July 2019 / Accepted: 1 July 2019

 Iran University of Science and Technology 2019

Abstract
To ensure safe crossing manoeuvres at signalized crosswalks, the pedestrian delays and allocation of sufficient pedestrian
green and flashing green times should be considered at design stage. The pedestrian signal settings in the State of Qatar
were analyzed through empirical observations of eight crosswalks. Video recording technique was used to record the
pedestrian movements and signal settings at selected crosswalks. The results indicated that excessive delays resulted in low
compliance rates at all crosswalks and the signal phasing affected compliance rate. Moreover, the analysis of crossing
speed indicated that the speed (1.2 m/s) currently specified by the Qatar Traffic Control Manual, 2015 for determining
clearance time is sufficient for safe crossing. In addition, the results of speed analysis indicated that the gender, type of
pedestrian signal display, and crosswalk length affect the crossing speed of pedestrians. A comparison of crossing times
with the provided signal timings indicated that a lower pedestrian flashing green is provided at all sites, and excessively
large buffer intervals are available. These results demonstrate the urgent need to modify signal settings to enable more
opportunities for walking and legal crossings. It is recommended that pedestrian signals should be always activated based
on the applied phasing plan without the need for pressing the push buttons. These push buttons can be used to recall early
pedestrian green to reduce their waiting time. Furthermore, at major crossings, countdown timers showing time remaining
for PG should be installed to improve compliance rates.

Keywords Signalized intersections  Pedestrian delay  Signal compliance  Clearance time  Crossing speed

1 Introduction

Intersections are key elements of road networks, and their

performance plays a major role in defining the overall
mobility and safety levels for all road users. Pedestrian–
vehicle conflicts are a major safety issue at intersections
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this
article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-019-00451-0) con- where pedestrian crosswalks are usually located. Thus,
tains supplementary material, which is available to autho- intersections are sensitive locations that require the selec-
rized users.
tion of proper control strategies to ensure safe and efficient
& Deepti Muley operation. Traffic engineers optimize traffic signals to
deepti@qu.edu.qa maximize the efficiency of vehicle flows while ensuring
Mohamed Kharbeche safety requirements. In general, low attention is given to
mkharbec@qu.edu.qa pedestrian flows and to the design of a signal plan to
Wael K. M. Alhajyaseen accommodate these requirements. Therefore, providing
wyaseen@qu.edu.qa efficient and safe pedestrian crossings have always been a
Mohammed Al-Salem challenge in practice. In fact, the choice of a suit-
alsalem@qu.edu.qa able crossing location, control strategy, control design, and
1
its implementation are essential for this purpose.
Qatar Transportation and Traffic Safety Center, Qatar Pedestrian crossings are provided at intersections and
University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar
2
mid-blocks where they are usually controlled by either a
College of Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar

123

traffic signal or a sign (yield sign or stop sign). Signal-
ization is the most common control technique at intersec-
tions, especially in urban areas where high vehicular and
pedestrian flows are present. Signalized crosswalks are the
safest place for pedestrians to cross as they provide a
dedicated space (crosswalks) and exclusive time [Pedes-
trian Green (PG)] to cross the road. However, pedestrian
safety at signalized crosswalks depends on the allocation of
the pedestrian phase and the provision of sufficient
pedestrian signal time to complete the crossing safely.
Even with proper allocation of pedestrian movements in
the phasing plan considering vehicular traffic, it is observed
that these crossings are common locations for pedestrian–
vehicle collisions; this implies that these locations are not
as safe as they are assumed to be [1, 2]. This safety issue
can be attributed to the non-compliance of pedestrians to
signal indication, aggressive driver behavior, and improper
provision of pedestrian signal timing. This non-compliance
further causes delay to vehicles and affects intersection
performance [3].
In the State of Qatar, the design and installation of traffic
signals are governed by predefined warrants specified in
Qatar Traffic Control Manual (QTCM) [4]. These warrants
primarily consider traffic volumes or turning movements to
design signal timings with an aim to maximize vehicle flow
[5]. In the next step, pedestrian volume is considered in
addition to vehicle volume and crash history. The signals
are designed to obtain specified v/c ratios for vehicles
while securing the required pedestrian clearance times for
each phase of the signal plan. If the criterion for pedestrian
clearance time is not satisfied, the green times for simul-
taneous vehicle phases will increase. This procedure does
not consider delay for pedestrians, which is why many
signals in the State of Qatar impose excessive delays on
pedestrians [6]. Many studies have indicated that excessive
delays promote non-compliant behavior of pedestrians and
increase safety risks [7, 8]. Many recent studies investi-
gated the consideration of person delay by considering
pedestrian volume and occupancy rates of vehicles as the
objective function to optimize traffic signals. However, in
practice, this is not implemented due to the lesser attention
given to pedestrians. Thus, in most cases, pedestrian delays
remain unacceptably high. To ensure the safety of these
vulnerable road users, planners and designers should con-
sider the delay caused to pedestrians by signal design, and
sufficient walk times and clearance time should be allo-
cated. It should be noted that the delay referred in this
study is the control delay of pedestrians due to signal
control. The control delay is constant for an intersection leg
and can be reduced only by altering the signal time set-
tings. Furthermore, delays play a vital role in the compli-
ance rates for pedestrians as they are more exposed to
weather conditions. Pedestrian signal compliance is rarely
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
monitored in most countries, unlike vehicle signal com-
pliance. In the State of Qatar, walking is not a common
mode of transport owing to cultural backgrounds and
severe hot weather conditions. Hence, relatively low
pedestrian activities are observed. On the other hand, the
State of Qatar is investing massively in mobility infras-
tructure projects, especially public transport, where a state-
of-the-art metro system is currently being built and is
supported by a wide modern bus feeder system. These
systems will significantly increase pedestrian activities,
which highlight the importance of providing safe and
efficient facilities.
This study aims at assessing the settings of pedestrian
signals, pedestrian compliance, and the imposed delay on
pedestrians in the State of Qatar based on empirical
observations at several sites. Accordingly, three objectives
are defined: (1) investigate the non-compliance of pedes-
trians to signal indication, (2) analyze the pedestrians
crossing speed and the influencing factors, and (3) examine
the adequacy of current signal settings for safe crossings.
2 Literature Review
2.1 Delay and Signal Compliance
Few studies analyzed pedestrian delay at signalized inter-
sections. Virkler suggested modifications to the pedestrian
delay model based on the compliance rates of pedestrians
[9]. Furthermore, three techniques were proposed to coor-
dinate signals to reduce pedestrian delay [8]. Li et al. found
that all pedestrians, irrespective of their arrival phase,
receive delays [10]. Hence, modifications to the existing
HCM manual method for the calculation of delay were
proposed to incorporate two-stage crossings by considering
three combinations of compliance [11]. Furthermore, a
multiple linear regression model was developed to estimate
pedestrian delay due to right turning vehicles by Dan and
Shi [12]. Nagraj and Vedagiri developed a pedestrian delay
model by considering nonuniform arrival rates and non-
compliance behaviors for Indian conditions [13]. However,
through previous studies, very little information was
obtained on the values of acceptable pedestrian delay while
designing signal settings.
Li and Fernie observed pedestrian behavior and non-
compliance rates for different weather and road conditions
at a two-stage crossing. Pedestrians’ non-compliance rates
increased during extreme weather conditions. Furthermore,
they concluded that the average walking speed increased
with a reduction in the temperature in winter. Overall, the
pedestrians’ crossing behavior was riskier in inclement
weather compared to fine weather [14].
International Journal of Civil Engineering
The signal compliance at concurrent and exclusive
pedestrian phases of 42 intersections was evaluated in
Connecticut in the USA. The results revealed that the
number of pedestrians that complied with concurrent
phasing is significantly larger than that with exclusive
phasing [15].
2.2 Crossing Speeds at Signalized Crosswalks
Tarawneh analyzed data for 27 crosswalks in Jordon, and
found that speed was significantly affected by gender, age
group, group size, and width of street. Furthermore, it was
recommended to use a design crossing speed of 1.11 m/s
[16]. In another study, Bennett et al. observed the pedes-
trian crossing speed in Melbourne in Australia. They rec-
ommended using a 1.24 m/s design speed for pedestrians
[17]. The multifactor analysis of variance (ANOVA) for
around 2000 pedestrians’ crossing speeds in the USA
showed that the crossing speed varied by type of traffic
control, group size, age, and disability. A design speed of
1.15 m/s and 1.22 m/s was recommended for the calcula-
tion of clearance time based on pedestrians’ demographic
distribution [18]. Furthermore, a study at 42 sites in the
USA showed that the 15th percentile crossing speed for
pedestrians was 1.17 m/s, and it was significantly affected
by the gender and age group [19]. In another study, the
crossing speed of 1579 pedestrians was observed for sig-
nalized crosswalks in Malaysia to suggest a design speed of
1.09 m/s. Furthermore, the crossing speed was statistically
different for the type of crosswalk, gender, and age groups,
while it was not significantly affected by time of day (day
and night) and cultural background and creeds of pedes-
trians [20].
Alhajyaseen investigated the effects of pedestrian signal
timing and indications, crossing direction, and crosswalk
length on crossing speed using data from three signalized
crosswalks in Nagoya City. It was concluded that pedes-
trian entry and crossing speeds increase as PG progresses.
Furthermore, at longer crosswalks, greater crossing speeds
were observed [21].
2.3 Pedestrian Signal Settings
Field studies were conducted to provide guidance on the
determination of walk interval, flashing do-not-walk
intervals, and 85th percentile crossing time based on the
platoon size [22]. Tian et al. proposed various alternatives
of providing pedestrian signal timings for split phasing of
coordinated signals and presented a model to improve
operational efficiency when exclusive pedestrian signal
phasing is used based on traffic conditions in the USA [23].
Perrin et al. studied the effect of severe weather conditions
on the design of signal timings to reduce congestion. They
concluded that while developing new signal timing plans,
the specified minimum pedestrian crossing time does not
need any change unlike vehicle signal timings [24].
Ishaque and Noland demonstrated a micro-simulation
model to optimize cycle lengths considering the relative
proportion of users using different modes (vehicles and
pedestrians) [25]. In another study, a traffic signal opti-
mization strategy for isolated intersections that considers
pedestrian and vehicle delays were developed by Li et al.
In this study, a fixed pedestrian speed was assumed
regardless of pedestrian characteristic and crosswalk
geometry [26]. It was found that pedestrian speed was a
primary factor affecting optimization function. The opti-
mization function was extended to consider the coordina-
tion of vehicle and pedestrian flows simultaneously. It was
concluded that the settings of pedestrian walking speed on
the sidewalk and crossing speed were essential for devel-
oping efficient pedestrian coordination strategies [27].
An adaptive pedestrian crossing signal control was tes-
ted to reduce the waiting time for pedestrians. This system
obtained real-time information on waiting areas and num-
ber of pedestrians using video and image sequences along
with control and display units [28]. Iryo-Asano and Alha-
jyaseen assessed the sufficiency of pedestrian clearance
times for seven crosswalks in Japan to find that a signifi-
cant number of pedestrians enter crosswalks after and
during Pedestrian Flashing Green (PFG), and the provided
PFG and Buffer Intervals (BI) were not sufficient, which
left pedestrians in the conflict zone [29].
Recently, Song et al. proposed a model to determine the
total crossing time for pedestrians’ platoons at signalized
crosswalks, which can be used as a reference while
designing the timings of pedestrian signals [30]. The cri-
teria for selecting suitable pedestrian phasing patterns were
developed by Ma et al. using a simulation approach by
considering the safety and efficiency for vehicles as well as
pedestrians [31].
3 Pedestrian Signal Design Practices
in Qatar
The Qatar Highway Design Manual (QHDM) states the
standards for the geometric design of signalized intersec-
tions [32]. It recommends checking the requirements for
crossing times for pedestrians and people with special
needs while designing the signals, similar to provisions
specified in FHWA [7] for the United States of America.
QTCM was developed to provide guidance on the design
and operation of traffic controls including signals [4]. For
pedestrian guidance, steady green indication is shown to
invite pedestrians to cross. It was recommended to provide
green signals, such that pedestrians cross half of the
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

crosswalk length. Pedestrian green times vary from 4 to
12 s and are typically provided as 6–7 s. A pedestrian
green interval is followed by flashing green interval to
indicate the clearance time in which the pedestrians are
supposed to complete crossing and refrained from starting
a new crossing manoeuvre. The clearance time, the time
needed to cross the whole crosswalk, is calculated by
assuming a crossing speed of 1.2 m/s [4]. During the
pedestrian red signal interval, pedestrians are not allowed
to start crossing as the conflicting vehicles movements are
released. To provide safety for pedestrians, a central refuge
is recommended for crosswalk length (curb-to-curb dis-
tance) of 11–15 m, while it is mandatory if the crosswalk
length exceeds 15 m. For the countdown signals, the
countdown starts with the green signal to indicate the time
remaining to finish the pedestrian green interval. The cri-
terion for the setting of pedestrian green time for count-
down signals is not specified in the manual.
FHWA states that the pedestrian walk time (green sig-
nal) should be between 4 and 15 s with the recommended
minimum value of 7 s. The PFG duration is calculated by
considering crossing speed of 1.07 m/s or 1.22 m/s
depending on site conditions. Furthermore, the countdown
signal is displayed during the pedestrian flashing green
interval showing the remaining time [7]. The countdown
display is not used during the pedestrian green or red signal
indications. In addition, the manual recommends a BI of
minimum 3 s. The summation of BI and PFG (upraised
hand) should be equal to the pedestrian clearance time.
Figure 1 shows the comparison of pedestrian signal set-
tings in the State of Qatar and the USA. It can be seen that
the main difference lies in provision of clearance time. In
the State of Qatar, buffer interval is provided in addition to
clearance time, while, in USA, the clearance time includes
the BI.
The pedestrian signal indications in the State of Qatar
are normally denoted as:
• Pedestrian Green (PG): indicated by continuous green
signal during which pedestrian/s can start crossing.
• Pedestrian Flashing Green (PFG): indicated by flashing
green signal during which the pedestrians are supposed
to complete crossing and are refrained from starting
crossing.
• Red (R): indicated by red signal during which pedes-
trians are not supposed to start crossing.
• Buffer Interval (BI): It is additional clearance time to
ensure pedestrians safety for those who enter the
crosswalk at the end of PG. It is the time difference
between the end of PFG and the onset of the green
signal for a successive conflicting vehicle phase for
normal signal indications. For the countdown timer, it is
the time difference between end of the PG and the onset
of the green signal for the successive conflicting vehicle
phase.
4 Site Selection and Data Collection
4.1 Site Description
Five intersections located near popular attractions, such as
shopping centers, traditional markets, and business centers,
were chosen for empirical observations as considerable
pedestrian movements were observed around these inter-
sections. Table 1 lists the geometric and signal control
setting information of the selected crosswalks. All obser-
vation sites are controlled by the Sydney Coordinated
Adaptive Traffic System (SCATS); hence, the signal tim-
ing allocations differed depending on vehicle demand.
Pedestrian signal timings (PG and PFG) are constant for all
sites except Grand Hamad Intersection (GHI). The BI
interval varies owing to the variation in vehicle green
timings. For both crosswalks at GHI, green time varied as

End of pedestrian Start of successive

green time vehicle green time

Qatar L/V
Pedestrian phase
Simultaneous vehicle phase
Successive vehicle phase

L/V
Min 3 s
USA
Pedestrian phase
Simultaneous vehicle phase
Successive vehicle phase

Flashing Amber Red

Green L = Length of crosswalk V = Crossing speed
Green

Fig. 1 Comparison of pedestrian signal settings between the State of Qatar and US

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 1 Selected crosswalk characteristics

Site Crosswalk name Name Refuge L (m) W (m) Type CL (s) PG (s) PFG (s) BI (s)

Al Fardan Centre (AF) Grand Hamad St AF(WA) Yes 20.20 3.0 CT 240 15 0 47–69
City Centre (CC) Conference Center St CC(EA) No 37.70 3.0 CT 150 26 0 9
Diplomatic St CC(SA) Yes 19.20 3.0 N 150 10 9 26–65
Sana Signal (SS) B Ring Rd SS(EA) No 20.30 3.0 N 140 8 12 32 or 34
RAAE SS(SA) No 24.50 3.0 N 140 8 12 29 or 30
Grand Hamad Intersection (GHI) RAAS GHI(SA) No 33.60 3.0 N 180 27–44 12 9
Al Matar St GHI(EA) No 30.60 3.0 N 180 9–20 12 30–55
Lulu Hypermarket (LH) D Ring Rd LH(EA) Yes 37.65 3.0 N 167 7 21 43
CL is the cycle length, L is curb-to-curb distance at crosswalk, W is the width of the crosswalk, WA is west approach, EA is east approach, and
SA is south approach

per the pedestrian and vehicle demand. GHI (SA) has a
fixed BI, while GHI (EA) has a variable BI. The phase
diagrams of the study sites are illustrated in Fig. 2. It
should be noted that an red period of 3 s is provided at all
intersections to ensure the safe clearance of vehicles
entering the intersection during amber/yellow time. Out of
the eight selected crosswalks (Table 1), two crosswalks
have countdown signals for pedestrian green interval. The
length of the crosswalks varies from 19.20 to 37.70 m,
while all crosswalks have a similar width of 3 m. As rec-
ommend by QTCM [4], crosswalks of more than 15 m in
length are expected to have refuge islands for pedestrians.
These refuge islands reduce the probability of fatal acci-
dents and also average speed of vehicles [33]. However,
only three crosswalks had a provision of wide refuge
islands for pedestrian use as listed in Table 1.
4.2 Data Collection and Extraction
All crosswalks were videotaped for about 1.5 h during
evening peak times on a typical weekday. High definition
cameras were placed on high-rise buildings close to the
intersections. The dimension of each crosswalk was mea-
sured using a measuring wheel in the field. Two data sets
were extracted from the videos: pedestrian compliance data
and pedestrian crossing time data. The pedestrian compli-
ance data included directional pedestrian count and corre-
sponding signal indication.

ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3 ϕ4
ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3

N N N N N N N

Sana Intersection
City Center Intersection

ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3 ϕ4
ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3

N N N
N N N N

Al Fardan Signal
Lulu Hypermarket Intersection

ϕ1 ϕ2 ϕ3 ϕ4 ϕ5

N N N N N

Grand Hamad Intersection

Fig. 2 Phase diagrams for selected intersections

123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Pedestrians crossing from the side where vehicles exit
the intersection are called near-side pedestrians, while
those crossing from the side where vehicles enter the
intersection are counted as far-side pedestrians. The start
time and end time of the pedestrian crossing manoeuvre
were extracted for the estimations of crossing time along
with pedestrian’s gender. Furthermore, corresponding sig-
nal cycle indications were extracted to determine the length
of available PG and PFG for all observed pedestrians
crossing the crosswalk at a single stretch. It is important to
highlight that those who crossed in multiple stages by
taking advantage of signal phasing, and those who crossed
away from the crosswalk were excluded from the crossing
time analysis. In addition, corresponding vehicle signal
indications were also recorded to determine the length of
BI. It should be noted that children and elder pedestrians
were not observed during the survey, and hence, pedestrian
age was not considered in the analysis.
ðCL  gwalk;mi Þ2
dp ¼ ; ð1Þ
2CL
where, dp is pedestrian delay (s/p), CL is cycle length (s),
and Gwalk,mi is effective walk time for the pedestrians (s).
The effective pedestrian walk time is taken as the
pedestrian green interval plus 4 s from the PFG interval,
because it was found that pedestrians normally continue to
start crossing during the first 4 s of the PFG period. The
estimated delays are reported in Table 2. For GHI, the
minimum PG value was used to calculate delays. It can be
seen that pedestrians face excessive delays at most sites
with more than 100 s at AF(WA). In general, as stated in
HCM, pedestrians become impatient when they experience
delays more than 30 s/p, which may induce risky behaviors
by not complying with the right of way indicated by sig-
nals. In contrast, pedestrians are very likely to comply with
signal indication if their expected delay is less than 10 s/p
[34].

5 Data Analysis 5.2 Signal Compliance

5.1 Analysis of Compliance Rates Table 2 presents pedestrian compliance rates based on
crossing direction. Pedestrians who started crossing during
5.1.1 Pedestrian Delay PFG were considered as compliant due to the large delays
experienced, and the pedestrians’ awareness of the avail-
Pedestrian delay is a key parameter for assessing the per- ability of long BIs. It should be noted that very few
formance of the signalized intersection. In this study, it is pedestrians arrived and started crossing during PFG.
calculated using the formula proposed by the Highway Overall, low compliance rates were observed at all sites.
Capacity Manual (HCM) [34], which is given as follows: GHI(EA) had the lowest compliance rate of 17%, while
LH(EA) had the highest compliance rate of 56%.
A comparison of compliance rates between the far-side
Table 2 Pedestrians’ signal compliance rates at selected crosswalks and near-side pedestrians showed that except for GHI(EA),
the compliance rate differed based on crossing direction.
Crosswalk Delay (s/ Near-side Far-side Total
This is mainly attributed to the influence of signal phasing.
name p) pedestrians pedestrians pedestrians
Pedestrians start crossing the first part of the crosswalk, in
Nn Cn Nf Cf Nt Ct which they have no conflicts with concurrent vehicles, and
(%) (%) (%)
wait on the median until acceptable gaps appear between
AF(WA) 101.75 57 24.56 77 10.39 134 16.42 the conflicting vehicles or until the flow of conflicting
CC(EA) 48.00 31 32.26 24 25.00 55 29.09 vehicles stops to cross the second part of the crosswalk.
CC(SA) 61.65 26 48.00 36 30.56 61 37.70 At CC(EA), GHI(SA), and LH(EA) crosswalks, pedes-
SS(EA) 58.51 38 68.42 43 25.58 81 45.68 trians used gaps in traffic to reduce their delay and to
SS(SA) 58.51 68 35.29 60 21.67 128 28.91 complete crossing quickly. It should be noted that most of
GHI(SA) 61.67 108 43.52 112 54.46 220 49.09 the signalized intersections in the State of Qatar follow
GHI(EA) 77.47 73 17.81 96 15.63 169 16.57 split phasing, which affects the compliance rates. FHWA
LH(EA) 72.86 24 40 40 83.33 64 56.25 states that improper signal design provides excessive
delays, non-compliance to signal indications, and it
Nn is number of pedestrians at near side, Cn is percentage of near-side
pedestrians complying to pedestrian signal, Nf is number of pedes-
increases the number of collisions [7]. Virkler highlighted
trians at far side, Cf is percentage of far-side pedestrians complying to that delay contributes to the non-compliance behavior of
pedestrian signal, Nt is total number of pedestrians at the crosswalk, pedestrians. The observed compliance rates varied from
and Ct is percentage of pedestrians complying to pedestrian signal at 33.3 to 97.4% at 47 observed crossings [9]. On an average,
the crosswalk
90% of non-compliant pedestrians arriving during non-
green phase were observed by Nagraj and Vedagiri [13].

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

Similarly, Li and Fernie found that the signal timing and
refuge island design have adverse effect on pedestrian
behavior at crossings, while the presence of adverse
weather further increased the non-compliance rates [14].
Lipovac et al. found more compliance with the pedestrian
signal at the countdown timer display compared to tradi-
tional signal display [35]. However, at these signals, the
timer display is for the remaining waiting time, and not for
the remaining PG or PFG time. On the other hand, the
analysis of 4-year pedestrian–vehicle crash data at inter-
sections showed that 80% of the crashes were due to
pedestrians’ fault [36]. This highlights the need for
increasing awareness, education, and possibly enforce-
ment, to improve pedestrian compliance at signalized
crossings, which will contribute to the reduction of
pedestrian–vehicle crashes. The countdown signal dis-
playing the time remaining to start crossing showed a
positive perception among pedestrians [37, 38]; hence, to
promote safe mobility, similar countdown displays are
recommended at major intersections in the State of Qatar.
5.3 Analysis of Signal Time Settings
5.3.1 Overview of Data
the recommended design speed by QTCM [4] and FHWA
[7], which is 1.2 m/s. The overall V15% (N = 346) was
found to be 1.26 m/s, which is in accordance with the
V15% reported by Bennett et al. [17], who collected
pedestrian speed at four crosswalks in Melbourne. How-
ever, the overall Va obtained was 1.49 m/s, which is sig-
nificantly lower than reported the Va (1.63 m/s).
5.3.2 Crossing Speed Analysis
The crossing speeds of all pedestrians were analyzed using
ANOVA to determine whether the crossing speeds are
different for gender, type of signal display, length of
crosswalk, and signal indication. The significance of
ANOVA was checked at the 95% confidence level. The
analysis indicated a significant difference between the
speeds of male and female pedestrians (K-S Z = 1.858,
p = 0.002) with an average speed of 1.50 m/s and 1.39 m/
s, respectively (Fig. 3a), which is in accordance with the
findings of Tarawneh [16] and Fitzpatrick et al. [19].
Furthermore, Marisamynathan and Vedagiri measured
average speeds for male and female pedestrians as 1.37 m/s
and 1.26 m/s, respectively [39], which are lower than the
average observed speeds in this study.

Pedestrians crossing characteristics for all sites are pre- 5.3.2.1 Crossing Speed Analysis for Male Pedestri-
sented in Table 3. Overall, very few female pedestrians ans Multifactor ANOVA was conducted to assess the
were observed at SS(EA), GHI(EA), and GHI(SA). How- interaction between various subgroups and the results are
ever, considerable proportion of female pedestrians were summarized in Table 4. The interaction between the start
seen at CC(EA), CC(SA), and LH(EA), which were located indication and type of signal display had the highest F
near major shopping centers. All sites have similar 15th value. To assess the effect of the type of pedestrian signal,
percentile speed V15% except for CC(SA), the shortest ANOVA was conducted between normal signal display and
crosswalk (19.2 m), which has the lowest V15% (1.16 m/ countdown signal display. It should be noted that the
s). At all sites, except for CC(SA), V15% was higher than countdown signal display does not have provisions for
PFG. The results showed that pedestrian speeds were sig-
nificantly different for both display types (K-S Z = 1.491,
Table 3 Pedestrians’ crossing characteristics at study locations
p = 0.023). The average pedestrian speed of those crossing
Crosswalk Np % Cta Ctmax Ct85% Va V15% at the countdown signals was significantly lower (1.42 m/s)
Male (s) (s) (s) (m/s) (m/s) compared to pedestrians crossing at crosswalks with nor-
AF(WA) 44 88.64 14.42 16.94 15.99 1.42 1.26 mal signal indications (1.53 m/s), as shown in Fig. 3b.
CC(EA) 34 67.65 27.03 32.08 29.81 1.41 1.26 For the countdown signal display, there was no signifi-
CC(SA) 39 71.79 14.11 20.22 16.61 1.41 1.16 cant difference between the crossing speeds of AF(WA)
SS(EA) 39 94.87 13.94 18.96 15.94 1.51 1.27 and CC(EA) (K-S Z = 0.844, p = 0.475). Surprisingly, the
SS(SA) 52 90.38 16.57 21.14 19.00 1.47 1.23 crossing speeds were independent of the signal indication
GHI(SA) 50 98.00 23.57 30.96 27.09 1.50 1.24 at the start of the crossing manoeuvre, showing no signif-
GHI(EA) 52 94.23 19.88 29.05 22.86 1.60 1.34
icant difference between pedestrian speeds during PG, BI,
LH(EA) 36 77.78 24.92 33.08 29.07 1.57 1.30
and R (v2 = 3.414, p = 0.181, df = 2). These results are
obtained from the limited sample size collected at the two
Overall 346 84.42 – – – 1.49 1.26
crosswalks [AF(WA) and CC(EA)] with countdown
Cta (s) is average crossing time, Ctmax (s) is maximum crossing time, signals.
Ct85% (s) is 85th percentile crossing time, Va (m/s) is average crossing
speed, and V15% is the 15th percentile crossing speed
For a normal signal display, the differences between the
crossing speeds of the six sites were found to be significant
(v2 = 11.679, p = 0.039, df = 5). The post hoc tests

123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

4 4
Max=3.66 Max=3.66

3 Max=2.91
3
Crossing speed (m/s)

Crossing speed (m/s)

Max=2.00
2 2
V85%=1.62 V85%=1.49 V85%=1.70 V85%=1.58
Va=1.50 Va=1.38 Va=1.53 Va=1.42
V15%=1.27 V15%=1.20 V15%=1.27
1 1 V15%=1.26
Min=0.95 Min=0.97 Min=0.95 Min=1.18
0 0
Male Female Normal Countdown
(a) All pedestrians based on gender (b) Male pedestrians based on control type

4
Max=3.66
Max=3.35
3
Crossing speed (m/s)

V85%=2.49
Max=2.24 Max=2.27
V85%=2.04
2 V85%=1.90
V85%=1.61 Va=1.78 Va=1.74
Va=1.56
Va=1.41 V15%=1.42
V15%=1.22 V 15 %=1.38
V15%=1.26
1 Min=1.21
Min=1.01 Min=0.95 Min=1.23

0
PG PFG BI R
(c) Male pedestrians crossing with normal signal indication based on start signal indications

Fig. 3 Crossing speed variations for homogeneous subgroups

during PG, PFG, BI, and R (v2 = 40.812, p \ 0.001, df =

Table 4 Results for multifactor ANOVA for male pedestrians’
crossing speeds
Description
SiteCode 9 StartIndication 9 DisplayType
SiteCode 9 StartIndication
SiteCode 9 DisplayType
StartIndication 9 DisplayType
revealed that the crossing speeds at CC(SA), SS(EA) were
significantly lower than that at LH(EA) (K-S Z = 1.470,
p = 0.027) and (K-S Z = 1.484, p = 0.024), respectively.
The speeds of GHI(EA) and LH(EA) were statistically
similar. Overall, the crossing speeds at long crosswalks
were found to be significantly higher than those at shorter
crosswalks. This is in accordance with the previous studies
by Tarawneh [16] and Alhajyaseen [21].
The effect of signal indication on the crossing speed was
assessed by ANOVA. The analysis showed that the
pedestrian crossing speeds were significantly different
3). The post hoc tests indicated that the speeds of pedes-
trians who started crossing during PG were significantly
F value Significance lower than the speeds of pedestrians crossing during PFG
(K-S Z = 1.866, p = 0.002), BI (K-S Z = 2.562,
6.551 p \ 0.001 p \ 0.001), and R (K-S Z = 1.449, p = 0.030), which is in
6.551 p \ 0.001 accordance with the findings of Gates et al. [18]. The
1.539 p = 0.154 average observed speeds during PG, PFG, BI, and R were
11.478 p \ 0.001 1.41 m/s, 1.78 m/s, 1.74 m/s, and 1.56 m/s, respectively
(Fig. 3c). These results are similar to the findings of
Alhajyaseen [21]. Pedestrians perceive the risk during
PFG, BI, and R, which make them accelerate to clear the
crosswalk to avoid potential conflicts with the vehicles.
5.3.2.2 Crossing Speed Analysis for Female Pedestri-
ans The crossing speeds of female pedestrians at signal-
ized crosswalks with countdown signals were not
significantly different from other sites (K-S Z = 0.983,
p = 0.289). Furthermore, there was no effect of crosswalk
length on the crossing speed of female pedestrians
(v2 = 12.664, p = 0.081, df = 7). This also applies on the
signal indication where no effect on speed was observed
(v2 = 3.724, p = 0.293, df = 3). It is important to note that

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering

100 100

Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

Min BI

Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

R PG R R PG BI R

80 80

60 60
(%)

(%)
40 40
Start crossing
Finish crossing
20 20
Start crossing
Finish crossing

0 0
-47.5
-42.5
-37.5
-32.5
-27.5
-22.5
-17.5
-12.5
-7.5
-2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
67.5
72.5
77.5
82.5
87.5
-17.5 -12.5 -7.5 -2.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(a) AF(WA) (b) CC(EA)

100
R PG PFG
Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

R
80
Min BI

60
(%)

40
Start crossing
Finish crossing
20

Time (sec)

(c) CC(SA) (d) SS(EA)

100 100

R PG PFG
Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

R
Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

R PG BI R
PFG
80 80
BI

60 60
(%)

(%)

40 40
Start crossing Start crossing
Finish crossing Finish crossing
20 20

0 0
-72.5
-67.5
-62.5
-57.5
-52.5
-47.5
-42.5
-37.5
-32.5
-27.5
-22.5
-17.5
-12.5
-7.5
-2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5

-17.5 -12.5 -7.5 -2.5 2.5 7.5 12.5 17.5 22.5 27.5 32.5 37.5 42.5 47.5 52.5 57.5
Time (sec) Time (sec)

(e) SS(SA) (f) GHI(SA)

100 100
Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

BI
Cumulave percentage of crossing pedestrians

R PG PFG Min BI R R PG PFG R

80 80

Max BI
60 60
(%)
(%)

40 40
Start crossing Start crossing
Finish crossing Finish crossing
20 20

0 0
-67.5
-62.5
-57.5
-52.5
-47.5
-42.5
-37.5
-32.5
-27.5
-22.5
-17.5
-12.5
-7.5
-2.5
2.5
7.5
12.5
17.5
22.5
27.5
32.5
37.5
42.5
47.5
52.5
57.5
62.5
67.5
72.5

Time (sec) Time (sec)

(g) GHI(EA) (h) LH(EA)

Fig. 4 Cumulative distribution of pedestrian start and complete crossing times for selected crosswalks

123

Fig. 5 Comparison of crossing times
the number of observed female pedestrians was very lim-
ited (46 pedestrians only). Thus, the above results cannot
be generalized and multifactor ANOVA cannot be
performed.
5.4 Distribution of Start and Complete Crossing
Times
The cumulative distributions of the times when pedestrians
start and complete crossing were plotted, as shown in
Fig. 4. For GHI(SA) and GHI(EA), the minimum PG times
are shown in Fig. 4f, g, respectively. GHI(SA) has one of
the highest proportion of pedestrians who start crossing in
PG (84%), and it has the highest proportion of pedestrians
who complete crossing in PG and PFG (84%). This is
because of the rational allocation of PG and PFG intervals,
which is associated with short BI. On the other hand, the
site with the lowest proportion of pedestrians starting
crossing in PG (28.85%) and completing crossing in PG or
PFG (13.46%) was GHI(EA), which is mainly due to the
allocation of short PFG interval and very long BI. This
highlights the major impact of signal settings on pedestrian
behavior and their compliance with signal indication.
At the longest crosswalk LH(EA), a majority of the
pedestrian waited until the onset of the PG to start crossing
(86.11%), and very few completed crossings during R. At
AF(WA), over 90% of the observed pedestrians completed
crossing after the onset of BI. This can be attributed to the
insufficient PG interval, irrational BI, and the relatively
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
short crosswalk. For CC(EA), more than 55% pedestrians
completed crossing after the onset of BI. It should be noted
that for signalized crosswalks with the countdown timer in
the State of Qatar, there is no PFG indication, and only PG
with the countdown timer of the remaining green time is
shown. All pedestrians who enter the crosswalk at the end
of PG will complete the crossing manoeuvre in BI or R.
In general, it was observed that short crosswalks
[CC(SA) and SS(SA)] had the largest proportion of
pedestrians who could not complete crossing during PG or
PFG, around one-fourth of the pedestrians completed
crossing during R. Lower compliance with signal indica-
tion were observed at shorter crosswalks compared to that
at longer ones. At GHI(SA), which is 33.60 m and
LH(EA), which is 37.65 m, a majority of the pedestrians
started crossing during PG, while a limited number of
pedestrians did not comply with the traffic signal and
started crossing when the signal indication was red.
5.5 Pedestrian Crossing Times
A comparison between the 85th percentile observed
crossing times with standard crossing times (calculated
based on the standard crossing speed of 1.2 m/s and
1.07 m/s), provided PFG intervals (the clearance times),
and available BIs, as shown in Fig. 5. The observed
crossing times were shorter than the standard crossing
times. However, at all study crosswalks, the provided
clearance times were much shorter than the observed 85th
International Journal of Civil Engineering
percentile crossing times. This is combined with signifi-
cantly long BIs at all sites except for CC(EA) and GHI
(SA). At these sites, the summation of PFG and BI is
significantly shorter than the observed 85th percentile
crossing time. This indicates the unavailability of a suffi-
cient crossing time for pedestrians, which pose severe
safety risks. For other sites, the provided BIs were longer
than needed (up to 200%), which imposed larger delays on
pedestrians and contributed to lower compliance rates.
These additional BIs can be utilized for providing sufficient
clearance times and additional green times for pedestrians
to reduce pedestrian delays.
6 Discussion
The analysis at the study sites revealed that pedestrians
were facing excessive delays, and hence, low compliance
rates to signal indications were observed. Furthermore, the
setting of pedestrian signal timings was not rational in that
insufficient PFG intervals and unnecessarily long BIs were
provided. Owing to the long delays imposed on pedestrians
(Table 2), risky behavior and non-compliance with signal
indication were frequently observed. At the sites where
rational PG/PFG intervals were provided with minimal BI,
such as those at GHI(SA), pedestrians were more compli-
ant with signals and most of them completed the crossing
manoeuvre before the onset of the red signal indication (BI
or R). It is strongly recommended to adjust pedestrian
signal settings by shortening BI intervals (up to the mini-
mum, 3 s) to provide longer PG and sufficient PFG inter-
vals. This will significantly reduce pedestrian delay, and
consequently, it is expected to improve pedestrian com-
pliance to signal indication and, hence, enhance the overall
safety level.
At signalized crosswalks with a countdown signal, no
PFG intervals are provided. The countdown timers show
remaining PG interval, and thus, sufficient BIs are neces-
sary to secure the needed clearance time for pedestrians
entering the crosswalk at the end of PG, while, for the
crosswalks with normal signal indications, clearance time
(L/Va) is indicated using PFG and BI should be provided as
a margin for safety. The provision of unnecessarily long
BIs, which are associated with short PG intervals, will
impose large delays on pedestrians and induce more vio-
lations as observed at AF(WA) and GHI(EA). Therefore,
the modifications listed in Table 5 are proposed for cal-
culating signal intervals for both types of signal
indications.
To demonstrate the expected improvement by adjusting
pedestrian signal settings, Table 6 is presented. The
clearance times are calculated assuming the average
pedestrian crossing speed of 1.2 m/s. It can be seen that
Table 5 Proposed modifications to the signal settings
Signal Countdown timer Normal signal display
intervals
Equation Display Equation Display
L


BI V þC
Shown by red C Shown by
signal standing red
man
PFG – – L Shown by
V
flashing
green signal
L


PG T  BI Shown by T V C
countdown
timer
Where, T is the difference between starting time of successive and
simultaneous vehicle green phase (in seconds), L is crosswalk length
(in meters), V average pedestrian crossing speed (to be taken as
1.2 m/s), and C is the minimum buffer time, for pedestrian safety
(minimum 3 s is recommended)
significant reductions in pedestrian delays can be achieved
while securing pedestrian signal setting requirements. At
CC(EA), the available vehicle green time is equal to
clearance time, and hence, the vehicle green time should be
increased to provide a sufficient walk time for pedestrians
to initiate crossing. Furthermore, for GHI(SA), the delay to
the pedestrian will increase slightly after modification,
because the requirements for the sufficient clearance times
need to be met (this requires allocation of sometime from
PG to PFG). A recent study by Sobie et al. tested a new
algorithm for designing signal timings for actuated signals,
which provided pedestrian priority. The reduction in the
extension time of actuated coordinated signal phases
showed considerable reduction in pedestrian delay without
affecting the overall vehicle delay [40].
Although pedestrian delays are significantly reduced
after modifications, they are still larger than the threshold
proposed by HCM [34] for pedestrians to become impatient
(30 s). Therefore, it is recommended to investigate the
possibility of reducing the cycle length, which is quite
large 140–240 s. Furthermore, the cycle length should be
optimized based on not only vehicle delays but also
pedestrian delays, which is expected to reduce pedestrian
non-compliance rates and improve safety levels.
7 Conclusions and Recommendations
It was found that the current pedestrian signal settings in
the State of Qatar need to be revised carefully to address
the issues of excessive delays for pedestrians, improper
utilization of available BIs, and insufficient clearance
times. The reduction in pedestrian delay is expected to
123
 International Journal of Civil Engineering

Table 6 Calculations for new signal timings and delays (using Min BI)
Crosswalk L (m) CL Delay before PGa PFGa BIa Delay after Estimated reduction pedestrian
name (s) improvement (s/p) (s) (s) (s) improvement (s/p) delay (%)

AF(WA)* 20.20 240 101.75 42 – 20 78.27 23.1

CC(EA)* 37.70 150 48.00 – – 35 – –
CC(SA) 19.20 150 61.65 26 16 3 48.00 22.1
SS(EA) 20.30 140 58.51 33 17 3 37.83 35.4
SS(SA) 24.50 140 58.51 26 21 3 42.76 26.9
GHI(SA) 33.60 180 48.40 34 28 3 50.63 -4.6
GHI(EA) 30.60 180 72.90 27.50 25.50 3 61.26 16.0
LH(EA) 37.65 167 72.86 36.63 31.38 3 47.82 34.4
L is crosswalk length (m), C is cycle length(s), PGa is pedestrian green interval after improvement (s), PFGa is pedestrian flash green interval
after improvement (s), and BIa is buffer interval after improvement

improve the compliance rates. Furthermore, the analysis of
pedestrian crossing speeds at eight signalized crosswalks in
the State of Qatar indicated that male pedestrians have
significantly higher speeds than female pedestrians. The
crossing speeds for male pedestrians were significantly
lower at signalized crosswalks with countdown signals.
Furthermore, pedestrian crossing speed during PFG, BI,
and R is significantly higher than that during PG.
In general, it is concluded that study sites have insuffi-
cient clearance times, which needs to be modified. Based
on the PG times and BI values that were set, it was found
that only one crosswalk [GHI(SA)] had appropriate pro-
visions for pedestrian signal setting by providing variable
PG times and reasonable BI (fixed). All other sites had
unnecessary long BIs, which could have been utilized for
providing longer PG/PFG intervals.
It is important to note that, at signalized intersections in
the State of Qatar, pedestrian phases need to be activated
by pressing the push button; otherwise, pedestrian green
signal indication will not be displayed, which many
pedestrians were not aware of. Thus, this caused illegal
crossings after waiting for a long time for the green signal.
Therefore, it is highly recommended that pedestrian signals
should be always activated based on the applied phasing
plan without the need for pressing the push buttons. These
push buttons can be used to recall early pedestrian green to
reduce their waiting time. Furthermore, at major crossings,
countdown timers showing time remaining for PG should
be installed.
Moreover, it is recommended to investigate the possi-
bility of reducing cycle length by adopting advanced
phasing schemes. Common cycle lengths at signalized
intersections in the State of Qatar are between 180 and
240 s, which lead to large delays imposed on pedestrians. It
is worth to mention that the State of Qatar hosts residents
from 87 different countries comprising more than 85% of
the population [41]. Such diverse population with different
background cultures and behaviors raise many challenges
for traffic control and may contribute to the observed low
compliance rates with the right of way rules at signalized
crosswalks. Therefore, proper education and enforcement
measures are necessary to complement the engineering
measures (rational and reasonable settings of signal control
at intersections considering pedestrians) to improve
pedestrian compliance rate and the overall safety levels at
intersections. Furthermore, the LOS of crossing facilities
should be evaluated considering these diversities based on
the method proposed in [42].
Acknowledgements This publication was made possible by an NPRP
award [NPRP 8-365-2-150] from the Qatar National Research Fund (a
member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely
the responsibility of the authors. The authors acknowledge that the
HCM delay model used is based on uniform arrival rates of pedes-
trians and it is not validated for Qatari conditions, which need to be
investigated in the future.
Funding Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar
Foundation).
References
1. Decker S, Otte D, Cruz DL, Müller CW, Omar M, Krettek C,
Brand S (2016) Injury severity of pedestrians, bicyclists and
motorcyclists resulting from crashes with reversing cars. Accid
Anal Prev 94:46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.010
2. Haleem K, Alluri P, Gan A (2015) Analyzing pedestrian crash
injury severity at signalized and non-signalized locations. Accid
Anal Prev 81:14–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.025
3. Sharifianjazi V, Nassiri H (2017) Adverse effect of red light
violation (RLV) in urban signalized intersections in Iran. Int J Civ
Eng 15(8):1107–1116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0242-
3
4. QTCM (2015) Qatar traffic control manual, vol 1, Part 5, Traffic
signals. Ministry of Transport, State of Qatar

123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
5. Noland R (1996) Pedestrian travel times and motor vehicle traffic
signals. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1553:28–33
6. Muley D, Alhajyaseen W, Kharbeche M (2017) An overview of
pedestrian signal setting and implementation in the State of
Qatar. Procedia Comput Sci 109C:545–552. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.procs.2017.05.337
7. FHWA (2009) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for
Streets and Highways (MUTCD). U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, Federal Highway Administration. http://mutcd.fhwa.
dot.gov/pdfs/2009/mutcd2009edition.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2019
8. Virkler MR (1998) Signal coordination benefits for pedestrians.
Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1636:77–82. https://doi.org/
10.3141/1636-12
9. Virkler MR (1998) Pedestrian compliance effects on signal delay.
Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1636:88–91. https://doi.org/
10.3141/1636-14
10. Li Q, Wang Z, Yang J, Wang J (2005) Pedestrian delay estima-
tion at signalized intersections in developing cities. Transp Res A
Policy Pract 39(1):61–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.11.
002
11. Wang X, Tian Z (2010) Pedestrian delay at signalized intersec-
tions with a two-stage crossing design. Transp Res Rec J Transp
Res Board 2173:133–138. https://doi.org/10.3141/2173-16
12. Dan L, Shi X (2013) Estimates of pedestrian crossing delay based
on multiple linear regression and application. Procedia Soc Behav
Sci 96:1997–2003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.225
13. Nagraj R, Vedagiri P (2013) Modeling pedestrian delay and level
of service at signalized intersection crosswalks under mixed
traffic conditions. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
2394:70–76. https://doi.org/10.3141/2394-09
14. Li Y, Fernie G (2010) Pedestrian behavior and safety on a two-
stage crossing with a center refuge island and the effect if winter
weather on pedestrian compliance rate. Accid Anal Prev
42(4):1156–1163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.004
15. Ivan JN, McKernan K, Zhang Y, Ravishanker N, Mamun SA
(2017) A study of pedestrian compliance with traffic signals for
exclusive and concurrent phasing. Accid Anal Prev 98:157–166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.10.003
16. Tarawneh MS (2001) Evaluation of pedestrian speed in Jordan
with investigation of some contributing factors. J Saf Res
32(2):229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(01)00046-9
17. Bennett S, Felton A, Akçelik R (2001) Pedestrian movement
characteristics at signalised intersections. In 23rd Conference of
Australian Institute of Transport Research, Clayton, Victoria,
Australia
18. Gates TJ, Noyce DA, Bill AR, Van Ee N, Gates TJ (2006)
Recommended walking speeds for pedestrian clearance timing
based on pedestrian characteristics. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res
Board 38–47:10. https://doi.org/10.3141/1982-07
19. Fitzpatrick K, Brewer M, Turner S (2006) Another look at
pedestrian walking speed. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
1982:21–29. https://doi.org/10.3141/1982-05
20. Goh BH, Subramaniam K, Wai YT, Mohamed AA, Ali A (2012)
Pedestrian crossing speed: the case of Malaysia. Int J Traffic
Transp Eng 2(4):323–332. https://doi.org/10.7708/ijte.2012.2.03
21. Alhajyaseen W (2015) Pedestrian speed at signalised crosswalks:
analysis and influencing factors. Int J Eng Manag Econ
5(3–4):258–272
22. Virkler MR (1998) Scramble and crosswalk signal timing. Transp
Res Rec J Transp Res Board 1636:83–87. https://doi.org/10.3141/
1636-13
23. Tian Z, Urbanik T, Engelbrecht R, Balke K (2001) Pedestrian
timing alternatives and impacts on coordinated signal systems
under split-phasing operations. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res
Board 1748:46–54
24. Perrin H, Martin P, Hansen B (2001) Modifying signal timing
during inclement weather. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board
1748:66–71. https://doi.org/10.3141/1748-08
25. Ishaque M, Noland R (2005) Multimodal microsimulation of
vehicle and pedestrian signal timings. Transp Res Rec J Transp
Res Board 1939:107–114. https://doi.org/10.3141/1939-13
26. Li M, Alhajyaseen W, Nakamura H (2010) A traffic signal
optimization strategy considering both vehicular and pedestrian
flows. In Compendium of papers CD-ROM, the 89th annual
meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
USA, pp 10–14
27. Alhajyaseen WK, Li M, Nakamura H, Daamen W (2013)
Effectiveness of signal coordination for pedestrian flows con-
sidering bi-directional flow impacts. Asian Transp Stud ATS East
Asia Soc Transp Stud (EASTS) 2(3):223–238. https://doi.org/10.
11175/eastsats.2.223
28. Xiao M, Zhang L, Hou Y, Chuan S (2013) An adaptive pedes-
trians crossing signal control system for intersection. Procedia
Soc Behav Sci 96:1585–1592. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.
2013.08.180
29. Iryo-Asano M, Alhajyaseen WKM (2014) Analysis of pedestrian
clearance time at signalized crosswalks in Japan. Procedia
Comput Sci 32:301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.
428
30. Song X, Yang Q, Qu Z, Tao P, Li Z (2015) New model for total
crossing time of pedestrian platoon at a signalized crosswalk.
Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2519:67–74
31. Ma W, Liao D, Liu Y, Lo HK (2015) Optimization of pedestrian
phase patterns and signal timings for isolated intersection. Transp
Res C 58:502–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.08.023
32. QHDM (2015) Qatar highway design manual. vol 1, Part 8,
Design for signalized intersections. Ministry of Transport, State
of Qatar
33. Sadrayi A, Saffarzadeh M, Boroujerdian AM (2019) Assessment
of pedestrian refuge islands on vehicle speed changes and
pedestrian safety: case study in Tehran. Int J Civ Eng 17:657.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40999-017-0244-1
34. HCM (2010) Highway capacity manual 2010. Transportation
Research Board, National Research Council. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000746
35. Lipovac K, Vujanic M, Maric B, Nesic M (2013) The influence of
a pedestrian countdown display on pedestrian behavior at sig-
nalized pedestrian crossings. Transp Res F Traffic Psychol Behav
20:121–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.07.002
36. Lee C, Abdel-Aty M (2005) Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-
pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accid Anal Prev
37(4):775–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.03.019
37. Lambrianidou P, Basbas S, Politis I (2013) Can pedestrians’
crossing countdown signal timers promote green and safe
mobility? Sustain Cities Soc 6:33–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2012.07.005
38. Paschalidis E, Politis I, Basbas S, Lambrianidou P (2016)
Pedestrian compliance and cross walking speed adaptation due to
countdown timer installations: a self report study. Transp Res F
Traffic Psychol Behav 42:456–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.
2015.07.010
39. Marisamynathan S, Vedagiri P (2013) Modeling pedestrian delay
at signalized intersection crosswalks under mixed traffic condi-
tion. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 104:708–717. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.sbspro.2013.11.165
123

40. Sobie C, Smaglik E, Sharma A, Kading A, Kothuri S, Koonce P
(2016) Managing user delay with a focus on pedestrian opera-
tions. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2558:20–29
41. Dsouza P (2017) Population of Qatar by nationality: 2017 report.
http://priyadsouza.com/population-of-qatar-by-nationality-in-
2017/on. Accessed 19 Feb 2017
123
International Journal of Civil Engineering
42. Erkan I, Hastemoglu H (2016) Analyzing level of service through
anthropometric scale and its contribution to transportation engi-
neering. Int J Civ Eng 14:585–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40999-016-0028-z