2013
DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2013.775613
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
64
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 86 publications
(66 citation statements)
references
References 60 publications
2
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cycling infrastructures are found to be an important factor influencing the extent and quality of cycling levels (Asadi-Shekari, Moeinaddini, & Shah, 2013;Browne, Rizet, Anderson, Allen, & KeIta, 2005;Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2010;Tirachini & Hensher, 2012). Stinson and Bhat (2005) found that cyclists are sensitive to different kinds of cycling route.…”
Section: Cycling Infrastructuresmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Cycling infrastructures are found to be an important factor influencing the extent and quality of cycling levels (Asadi-Shekari, Moeinaddini, & Shah, 2013;Browne, Rizet, Anderson, Allen, & KeIta, 2005;Heinen, van Wee, & Maat, 2010;Tirachini & Hensher, 2012). Stinson and Bhat (2005) found that cyclists are sensitive to different kinds of cycling route.…”
Section: Cycling Infrastructuresmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…As mentioned by Asadi-Shekari et al [1], there Pedestrian Serviceability Index Including Pedestrians on Vehicle-Path 329 are two common approaches for evaluating PLOS (pedestrian level of service): the first can be defined as a capacity-based model and the second is a roadway characteristic-based model. Capacity based methods are based on the principles of highway capacity which have been suitably adjusted to evaluate pedestrian facilities which are helpful in planning pedestrian facilities but provide little information regarding acceptability by pedestrians.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Segments are then given a letter grade "A" through "F" by how closely they meet BCI and BLOS standards (see Moudon & Lee [35] for a review of 11 closely related bicycle network audit instruments). One critique of these methods is that due to the extensive amount of variables used, results have little actionable meaning to either planners or users of the network [36][37][38]. For example, it is difficult to conceptualize the difference between two letter grades, such as an "A" segment and a "B" segment.…”
Section: Audit Instruments For Bicycle Networkmentioning
confidence: 99%