Next Article in Journal
A Preliminary All-Aluminium Vehicular Bridge Concept Using Bobbin Tool Friction Stir Welding
Previous Article in Journal
A Data-Driven Analytics Configuration for Instructional Performance Monitoring in Digital Learning Ecosystems
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Proceeding Paper

Research on Traffic Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing at a Light-Regulated Intersection: Case Study of City of Sofia †

1
Faculty of Transport, Department of Combustion Engines, Technical University of Sofia, Automobile Engineering and Transport, 8 St. Kliment Ohridski, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Faculty of Telecommunications, Department of Radio Communications and Video Technology, Technical University of Sofia, 8 St. Kliment Ohridski, 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria
3
Faculty of Finance and Accounting, Department of Financial Control, University of National and Word Economy, 19 8th December Str., 1756 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Presented at the 15th International Scientific Conference TechSys 2026—Engineering, Technologies and Systems, Plovdiv, Bulgaria, 14–16 May 2026.
Eng. Proc. 2026, 150(1), 105; https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026150105
Published: 4 August 2026

Abstract

The safe crossing of pedestrians at traffic light-regulated intersections is ensured by the permissive and prohibitive signals provided for them and by certain priority rules that drivers in traffic flows conflicting with pedestrians must comply with. This in turn leads to the occurrence of traffic delays, which are inevitable under certain traffic conditions. The present study focuses on determining the length of traffic delays when pedestrians cross at a traffic light-regulated intersection in the city of Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria. The intersection was selected due to the high intensity of pedestrian flows established in preliminary random observations, which is provoked by its location. The study includes determining the traffic delays over a period of 12 h with full readings of these indicators for each cycle of the traffic light system during the morning and evening peak periods and with partial readings for 15 min for each cycle in the remaining hours of the study period. The results show the lack of a relationship between the waiting time of vehicles and the number of pedestrians crossing. Such an influence can be sought in the behavior and types of pedestrians and the intervals at which they enter the crosswalk. This study can assist researchers in this field in developing pedestrian crossing models and determining additional measures to increase their safety when crossing light-regulated intersections.

1. Introduction

Pedestrians must cross roadways in a safe manner. When this is done at traffic light-controlled intersections, pedestrians are provided with the necessary safe intervals for their crossing and intervals with a ban on crossing in order to prevent traffic accidents. Some safety measures determine the occurrence of traffic delays due to the fact that vehicles in traffic flows that conflict with crossing pedestrians are obliged to wait for pedestrians to cross at their permissive signal. Studies on this issue have been presented by Nkurunziza et al. [1], who established alarming statistics regarding the observance of obligations by drivers. They distinguished motorcyclists as the most aggressive drivers compared to those of vehicles and buses. Another aspect of safe pedestrian crossing is the behavior of pedestrians during crossing, on which Fu et al., in [2], presented a study in which the authors divided crossing pedestrians into three groups—conservative, ordinary and adventurous, depending on the deviation from their initial trajectory during crossing. This issue is largely related to the magnitude of traffic delays when crossing at a light-regulated intersection. This applies especially to the adventurous pedestrians identified by the authors of [2], who deviate from their initial trajectory by more than 4 m and even go beyond its outlines. The behavior that was observed at the studied intersection and presented in this publication can be the subject of future research in this area. The technical means used by Fu et al. in [2] was impressive; they used an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry out their study. Such approaches to conducting research are being proposed and used more and more often in the field of road traffic, as presented by the authors of [3]. The method used for processing results directly corresponds to the increasing use of such approaches, as presented by Damyanov in [4]. Safe pedestrian crossing requires continuous search for models and solutions to be implemented in this area, an example of which is presented by Evstatiev et al. in [5]. Of particular importance is the width of pedestrian crossings, for which Amin et al. provide appropriate recommendations [6]. Other authors [7] focus on the importance of the length of crossings, which may be a significant factor in crossing and its relationship with the occurrence of accidents. They, in turn, are the subject of research by Savova-Mratsenkova and Palagachev in [8].
Another important aspect of ensuring safe pedestrian crossing and the influence of waiting time for vehicles is related to the possibilities of increasing the throughput capacity of crossing sections [9]. A similar issue is addressed by Vu TU and SANO in [10]. They also consider the increase in delays caused by pedestrians crossing roads, taking into account the influence of the intensity of traffic and pedestrian flow. Delays are a major factor in determining the way pedestrians cross. They are the subject of consideration by various authors [11,12,13] in different crossing conditions, and other authors resort to mathematical modeling methods to optimize the crossing process [14]. Sun et al., in [13], pay attention to pedestrian behavior from the point of view of the possibility of violations being caused by the waiting time for crossing. A similar analysis was also made by Alomari et al. in [15]. Gitelman [16] and Simeunović [17] present the issues of violations and delays in the context of specific traffic conditions when crossing bus routes with priority and the influence on the decision to cross at the end of the road release phase. In this regard, Sharma, in [18], proposes a solution that lets pedestrians cross in order to reduce delays.
One of the important issues in our time was identified by Hashimoto et al. in [19], namely, perception of pedestrian behavior and ensuring their safety in conditions of connected car traffic. The authors consider the case of cars passing through a signalized intersection.
Pedestrian crossings at roundabouts have also been the subject of research by authors such as Distefano in [20]. Studies such as that presented by Mladenov in [21,22] are necessary to develop adequate solutions. In this regard, Sharma, in [23], presents exceptionally well the developments that can ensure the safety of pedestrian crossings and reduce delays and the role of policies in this area.
The type of pedestrian crossing and the corresponding time for slowing down the flow of traffic are major factors that directly affect the environmental pollution from vehicles in areas of the street network where there are intersections and pedestrian crossings. This indicator is considered by different authors in two directions—noise pollution [23,24] and pollution from harmful components in the exhaust gases of vehicles with internal combustion engines [25]. It is determined by the types and amounts of harmful components that are released when vehicles are operating on the spot, which are different from those released during their movement and directly related to the operating modes of internal combustion engines, the type of fuel used and its influence on their parameters [26,27,28].
The different directions of development of the circumstances that are influenced by the pedestrian crossing also determine the different approaches in the goals and methods of studying this process and offering a wide range of solutions related to the various aspects of influence, especially the time needed for pedestrians to cross the roadway, the slowing down of traffic flows, the reduction of travel times and the harmful impact on the environment when vehicles are operating on site.
This manuscript focuses on the study of the time of slowing down of traffic flows when pedestrians cross at a light-regulated, four-lane intersection. The object of study is an intersection in the city of Sofia, which is located in a busy area of the city, near one of the largest universities in the Republic of Bulgaria, a student campus, a polyclinic, restaurants and public transport stops. The goal is to establish the order of the waiting time of vehicles caused by the pedestrian crossing.

2. Materials and Methods

The study of traffic delays caused by pedestrian crossings presented in this manuscript was carried out at the intersection between “8th December” Street and “Acad. Stefan Mladenov” Street in Sofia, Republic of Bulgaria. The traffic organization at the intersection under consideration has two incoming and two outgoing lanes for each of the branches. On each branch, the incoming lanes are mixed, with the right one allowing for straight and right traffic, and the left one allowing for left and straight traffic. The exception is branch 1 where the right incoming lane is only for right-turning traffic. The width of the lanes (in meters) and the traffic organization at the intersection under consideration are shown in Figure 1. For the purposes of the study, the traffic and pedestrian flows were numbered using the method of numbering the individual entrances and exits of the intersection (Figure 1). It was found that traffic passes in three phases, which have constant times for the individual signals. The types and sequences of the individual phases (phase plan) are shown in Figure 2. The intersection is characterized by a high intensity of pedestrian flow, established in preliminary random observations, which also motivated this study. Subsequent results showed the reliability of the preliminary random observations.

2.1. Measurement Methodology

The measurement methodology includes counting the waiting time of vehicles when crossing the intersection in cases where they are held up by pedestrians. This is done for each phase, and the measurement results for each cycle are recorded in a table. The cumulative waiting time of each car in the queue that is held up by pedestrians is counted (for example, the waiting time of the second car in the queue includes the waiting time of the first car and its waiting time after the first car has passed), and the number of pedestrians and vehicles that have passed for each phase is also counted. When performing measurements for the third phase, in addition to the delay caused by pedestrians, the transport delay caused by the need for vehicles turning from the obstructed flows to wait for oncoming vehicles from the same phase is also counted. In this way, a value is also given to the total delay of the turning flows caused by both delaying factors—pedestrians and oncoming vehicles.

2.2. Carrying Out the Measurement

The measurement was conducted in the period from 10 October 2024 to 31 October 31 2024. It was carried out on weekdays—Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which have been proven not to differ significantly in their movement parameters. The study period was from 08:00 to 19:00. The hourly measurements of this period were as follows:
  • Recording of waiting times for a period of 1 h for the morning and evening peak periods, from 08:00 to 09:00 and from 18:00 to 19:00.
  • Recording of waiting times for 15 consecutive cycles of the traffic light system in the same interval, starting at the 30th minute for each of the remaining hours. The aim was to determine the nature of any change in waiting times in non-peak periods.

3. Results

The results of the study are presented for the individual phases. The results for the peak periods are illustrated in the corresponding tables in the main text and in Appendix A. The results of the measurements for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours are illustrated in Appendix B.

3.1. Measurement Results for Phase 1

During phase 1, traffic flows 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 pass. Flow 4-1 is obstructed by pedestrians (Figure 2).
The measurement results for the morning and evening peak periods within the study period are presented in Table 1. The measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours are illustrated in Table A1 in Appendix A.

3.2. Measurement Results for Phase 2

During phase 2, traffic flows 2-3, 2-4. 2-1 and 1-2 pass. Flow 2-3 is obstructed by pedestrians (Figure 2).
The measurement results for the morning and evening peak periods within the study period are presented in Table 2. The measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours are illustrated in Table A2 in Appendix A.

3.3. Measurement Results for Phase 3

During phase 3, traffic flows 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 3-2, 3-1 and 3-4 pass. Flow 1-2 and flow 3-4 are obstructed by pedestrians, and flow 1-4 and flow 3-2 are obstructed by pedestrians and oncoming vehicles, which are required to pass (Figure 2).
The results are presented for the individual approaches to the intersection that cross the pedestrian flows that are passed in phase 3.
The measurement results for the morning peak period for pedestrian flows crossing entrance 2 within the study period are presented in Table 3. The measurement results for the evening peak period are presented in Table A3 in Appendix B. The measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours are illustrated in Table A4 in Appendix B.
The measurement results for the morning peak period for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 4 within the study period are presented in Table 4. The measurement results for the evening peak period are presented in Table A5 in Appendix B. The measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours are illustrated in Table A6 in Appendix B.

4. Discussion

4.1. Phase 1

The analysis of the results for phase 1 shows that in the morning, not every cycle has pedestrians blocking the passage of vehicles. This happens in about 30% of cases. In the evening peak period, such situations are not observed, and throughout its duration, in every cycle, there is a waiting time for vehicles when pedestrians cross.
It can be seen that during the morning peak period, in 10% of cases, a waiting time for the second car in a queue is observed, without having to wait for the first car. This means that pedestrians arrive after the start of a signal that allows their passage (in cases where there is a waiting time for the first car in the queue, the waiting time for the second car also includes the waiting time for the first).
During a very small part of the morning and evening peak periods, a waiting time for the fourth car in the queue is observed in the absence of waiting second and third vehicles, which indicates the unevenness of the arrival of pedestrians.
The results show that in most cases, the third car in a queue does not have to wait additional time and is not obstructed by pedestrians (with the exception of one cycle in the evening peak period).
It is noticeable that the vehicle dwell time in some cases in the evening peak period is higher than in the morning, which can be explained by the density of pedestrian flows.
The measurements show almost identical values for the intensity of pedestrian traffic in the morning and evening peak periods—420 ped/h in the morning and 429 ped/h in the evening. The intensity of the vehicular flows is different. The number of vehicles passing through the obstructed flow 4-1 in the morning period is higher than in the evening, with 190 veh/h passing during the morning peak period and 160 veh/h passing during the evening.
The results of the measurements for 15 cycles for each hour of the studied period outside of peak hours show data similar to those of the measurements for the morning and evening peak periods. The measured average number of pedestrians crossing in each hour is 178, almost 1/3 the total number of pedestrians crossing during the morning and evening peaks, which is commensurate with the time for 15 cycles. This indicates uniformity of pedestrian traffic during the studied period.
In some of the measurements during the off-peak periods, waiting for the second car is observed, without having to wait for the first. It can be seen that in the time range from 10:00 to 14:00, there is no need to wait for the third and fourth car, which indicates uniformity of pedestrian crossing at the beginning of the green signal. The intensity of the obstructed flow 4-1 is uniform for each of the measurement hours.
It is noteworthy that in the period 15:00–16:00, the delay time has the highest values—16.68 s, compared to the average delay time for each hour, which is 12.13 s. This is due to the high pedestrian intensity in this hour (322 pedestrians in 15 cycles).
The average delay time for vehicles in Phase 1 (Figure 3):
  • from 08:00 to 09:00, 10.30 s
  • from 18:00 to 19:00, 11.92 s
  • from 09:00 to 18:00, 12.13 s

4.2. Phase 2

The results show a relationship similar to that in phase 1 namely that for some of the cases, there is an absence of pedestrians to prevent the passage of vehicles in the morning and evening peak periods. For the morning period, this is observed in 38% of the cases, and for the evening, in 30%. It is noteworthy that in 8% of the measurements for the evening peak period, there is a waiting period for the second car, without having to wait for the first. In the morning peak period, there is no need to for the second, third and fourth car to wait. A waiting period for the third car is also observed in 8% of the evening measurements, and for cycle 16, the absence of the first and second vehicles is noted. The results show that there is no need to for the fourth car in the evening peak period to wait.
The intensity of pedestrian traffic in the morning and evening peak periods is uneven. The difference shows higher values for intensity in the evening peak period, when 414 ped/h passed, and in the morning peak period, when 307 ped/h passed. This is also reflected in the lower number of pedestrians that passed during the individual cycles for the morning peak period in comparison with the evening. In the morning peak period, it is observed that in the middle of the period, the highest number of pedestrians passed—18, while in the evening, the intensity is higher, with 23 pedestrians passing per cycle.
The analysis shows almost identical intensity values for the obstructed flow 2-3. with the difference showing higher values in the evening, when 69 veh/h passed, and in the morning, when 63 veh/h passed.
The intensity of flow 2-4 and flow 2-1 is also identical for the evening and morning peak periods (364 veh/h in the morning and 374 veh/h in the evening for flow 2-4, and 212 veh/h in the morning and 207 veh/h in the evening for flow 2-1). It is noted that for flow 2-1 in the morning period in 30% of cases, the intensity is higher, while in the evening, this percentage decreases to almost half—17%.
The analysis shows a low intensity of flow 1-2, with the intensity being higher in the evening (78 veh/h) compared to the morning peak period (37 veh/h). In the evening peak period, almost 13% of the measurements show the absence of pedestrians to obstruct the passage of vehicles, while in the morning, this value is almost four times higher—45%.
The analysis of the measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the studied period during off-peak hours shows that in the interval from 09:00 to 10:00, only 8% of the measurements show a delay for vehicles. This is due to the low intensity of the obstructed flow 2–3, with only six vehicles passing through in 15 cycles. In the remaining measurements, the intensity is almost identical—an average of 35–40 vehicles passing through in 15 cycles. The lower intensity in the interval 17:00–18:00 is noticeable, when 27 vehicles pass in 15 cycles
In some cases, the second car in the queue is held up, without the first having to be held up. It is noticeable that in the interval 12:00–13:00, the delay of vehicles is the highest—15.52 s, which is almost 5 s longer than the average waiting time in this period of time—10.68 s.
The average delay time for vehicles in phase 2 (Figure 4):
  • from 08:00 to 09:00 is 7.85 s
  • from 09:00 to 18:00 is 10.68 s
  • from 18:00 to 19:00 is 8.33 s

4.3. Phase 3

4.3.1. Analysis of Data on Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing Entrance 2

The data analysis shows that for flow 1-2 in the morning and evening peak periods, not every cycle has pedestrians to obstruct the passage of vehicles. In the morning period, in 55% of the measurements, the absence of pedestrians to obstruct the passing vehicles is observed, while for the evening period, the value is almost three times lower—18%.
The high intensity of the obstructed flow 1-2 is observed in the evening peak period, when 78 veh/h pass. During the morning peak period, almost two times fewer vehicles passed—37 veh/h. For flow 1-2 in the morning and evening periods, there is no delay for the third and fourth vehicles.
It is noticeable that in some cases, the reported delay time for flow 1-2 is significantly higher than the average reported time. This is observed in cycle 16 (24.16 s with an average time of 13.01 s) for the morning peak period and in cycle 27 (31.01 s with an average time of 14.64 s) for the evening peak period.
The analysis shows a higher intensity of pedestrian traffic for branch 2 in the evening period, during which 592 ped/h pass, compared to the morning, when the intensity is much lower—386 ped/h.
The results for the other retained flow 3-2 show that in 13% of the cases, the absence of pedestrians to obstruct the passage of vehicles is observed. As for the second car in the morning period, the absence of pedestrians to obstruct the vehicles is observed in 90% of the cycles. In the evening period, a lower result is observed in 68% of the measurements. The small difference in intensity for flow 3-2 is striking: the results show almost identical values of 94 ped/h in the evening peak period and 86 ped/h in the morning peak period.
Analysis of the data of flow 3-2 for vehicles delayed (from flow 1-3) in the morning and evening peak periods shows that, in only 10% of the measurements in the morning period, car delays are observed, and in the evening, in 15%. The number of delayed vehicles in the evening is higher—11 vehicles per hour, and in the morning, it is almost twice lower—six vehicles per hour. The delayed flow 1-3 has a higher intensity in the morning—136 veh/h, and in the evening, it is 87 veh/h.

4.3.2. Analysis of Data on Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing Entrance 4

The analysis shows that in the morning peak period in 68% of cases for flow 3-4, the absence of pedestrians to obstruct the passage of vehicles is observed. In the evening peak period, this is observed in 30% of the measurements. This can be attributed to the higher intensity of the pedestrian flow in the evening period, when 354 ped/h passed compared to the morning—320 ped/h, despite the minimal difference. The intensity of car traffic is the opposite, as the results show higher values in the morning—126 vehicles per hour, compared to the evening—119 vehicles per hour. It is noteworthy that the longest recorded delay time of 19.98 s in the morning peak period for flow 3-4 is not when the most pedestrians passed in one cycle, which occurs in cycle 27 (21 pedestrians), when no car delay was recorded. The average number of pedestrians passing in the morning period is eight pedestrians per cycle.
In turn, the highest pedestrian intensity at the beginning of the evening period, when 24 pedestrians pass per cycle, provokes the highest delay for vehicles, of 23.7 s, with an average of 14.35 s.
For the other flow 1-4 obstructed by pedestrians, it is noted that in 18% of cases in the morning peak period, there are no pedestrians, and in the evening, this is observed in 10% of the measurements. Delays for a second car from flow 1-4 in the morning period are not observed in 75% of the cases, and for the evening, in 83% of the measurements. It is noteworthy that in one of the cases, a delay was recorded for the fifth car for flow 1-4.
The average time for pedestrians to stop traffic on flow 1-4 is 13 s for the morning period and 13.88 s for the evening. It is noteworthy that in about 8% of the measurements for pedestrian stops for the first vehicle from flow 1-4, the average stop time in the morning period is over 20 s, which in one case is over 10 s longer than the average recorded time of 16.58 s. In the evening period, the same phenomenon is observed in about 10% of cases. The intensity of vehicles in the morning is 181 veh/h, and in the evening—165 veh/h. Measurements for vehicles from flow 1-4 stopped because of other vehicles (from flow 3-1) show that such is observed in 38% of cases in the morning period and in 28% in the evening period. The low percentage of vehicles stopped due to other vehicles compared to vehicles stopped by pedestrians is due to the high pedestrian intensity, which impedes the passing flows. The intensity of flow 3-1 in the morning period is 217 veh/h. The intensity in the evening peak period is almost two times lower—90 veh/h
The analysis of the measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the studied period during off-peak hours shows that not every cycle has pedestrians or vehicles that impede the passage of vehicles for flows 3-4, 1-4, 1-2 and 3-2. The measurements also show the low intensity of pedestrian traffic in the period 09:00–10:00 for branches 2 and 4, as the number of obstructed vehicles is lower. It can be seen that the intensity of pedestrian traffic increases in the afternoon hours.
It is noteworthy that in the time ranges 12:00–15:00 and 17:00–18:00 for flows 1-4 and 3-2, there are no other vehicles (except in one case for both flows) that would impede passage. The average delay time for phase 3 is presented in Table 5 and Figure 5.

5. Conclusions and Further Work

The presented study can serve as a good basis for teams working in the field of traffic delays and methods for their reduction. It can be assumed that the data for intersections with a similar configuration and intensity of traffic and pedestrian flows will be similar in terms of the values for delays of vehicles caused by crossing pedestrians and in individual cases, depending on the sequence of passing traffic and pedestrian flows, and in terms of the values for delays caused by the obligation of one group of vehicles to wait for the passage of another.
The results achieved show that the number of crossing pedestrians does not always affect the magnitude of the traffic delay. For this, it is necessary to look for other subjective factors, which some of the authors cited in the introduction talk about and take into account as part of the nature and manner of passage of different traffic participants through an intersection. In this case, it is necessary to pay attention to the delays caused by each of the waiting vehicles in a queue, which will allow for the formation of a comprehensive view of this indicator. It is necessary to take into account that the time of day sometimes does not have a strong enough influence on the generated traffic delays. Given the reported and analyzed results, the authors plan to devote some of their future work to taking into account and determining the dependencies of these factors and exploring other options that are considered to improve the passage through the intersection in question in order to reduce the delays caused by crossing pedestrians, as follows:
  • Evaluation of a variant with a phase plan that provides for the passage of left-turning flows in a separate phase;
  • Adjusting the traffic light system in real time, according to the needs of individual transport and pedestrian flows;
  • Introducing separate pedestrian phases when increasing the intensity of pedestrian traffic;
  • Separating pedestrian and vehicle traffic through pedestrian overpasses or underpasses.

Author Contributions

All authors worked equally to achieve the results presented in this publication. Conceptualization, D.S., T.V., L.L. and M.M.; methodology, D.S., T.V., L.L. and M.M.; formal analysis, D.S., T.V., L.L. and M.M.; investigation, D.S., T.V., L.L. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S. and T.V.; writing—review and editing, L.L. and M.M.; visualization, D.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Research and Development Sector at the Technical University of Sofia for the financial support. The authors would like to extend thanks also to Iva Grancharova, from Technical university of Sofia, for her supporting role for the investigation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Measurement results for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Table A1. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours—Phase 1 *.
Table A1. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours—Phase 1 *.
WTPPVPTVPCWTPPVPTVPC
1st2nd3rd4th4-14-24-31st2nd3rd4th4-14-24-3
09:00–10:0010:00–11:00
114.84 19.76 2746 1010.04 93418
27.88 548 125.59 1028212
314.84 82711012.53 969116
413.18 735 813.71 1358013
56.86 556 1117.77 2739012
611.3118.79 949 1317.89 1539 12
715.18 5572144.81 5414119
88.64 184 1213.64 1048 12
9015.21 146511222.87 30211 13
10010.96 248 127.75 1145 9
1110.9 574 1117.71 2848 12
1210.19 8431810.65 678217
138.36 17.2847 115.8613.87 838112
1410.5 1036 911.83 945110
155.8 45531321.3 33410 14
11:00–12:0012:00–13:00
15.33 26111189.72 253519
2 3.23 277 1411.7215.41 1538213
39.73 75411013.8 1648 12
45.66 7351914.87 1239 12
511.59 10310 134.7515.65 25610319
612.28 15171916.14 2368115
713.77 113911314.9 13511117
813.4 74811312.48 15410014
96.99 261021820.46 3348 12
106.39 104711211.22 1666214
112.4 26811515.83 1948113
1213.27 164911414.92 1858114
139.94 469 1513.44 12411015
146 278 1521.86 34211114
154.93 35 54.9912.09 1059115
13:00–14:0014:00–15:00
11.669.99 10610 1613.05 21510 15
28.7912.89 164911416.53 2649 13
311.28 146721517.4 2349 13
416.4 213921418.2822.78 2058114
518.89 303821318.45 2848214
612.03 759 1412.92 1159 14
713.46 134521117.73 1358 13
8013.13 5610 1614.45 1667 13
913.46 86621418.07 38411116
1010.7 106811514 17510 15
1110.18 86911613.61 11313117
1210.66 1166 1216.96 2549 13
1315.05 17310 1316.5 15511 16
147.02 1041111618.91 23212 14
154.02 3.2524811317.18 3539 12
15:00–16:0016:00–17:00
19.46 561011714.22 11310 13
29.08 126811513.69 1049 13
318.2820.77 23491143.0511.61 559115
416.46 20311 1422.04 24310 13
517.35 18411 1514.97 1247213
66.89 6.75 8581148.61 7510 15
710.58 6510 152.83 5511117
89.65 11310 1311.24 1577115
917.32 2849 1311.91 1348214
1012.28 14410 1413.77 1846212
1112.3 849 1311.82 1754110
1213.59 931011416.54 1346212
13 7.9 6.24166811512.8415.89 1138112
1420.02 20323810.71 1588117
1510.5214.74 103721212.8 14411 15
17:00–18:00
15.43 726628
2 503345
37.5 807744
42.89 12111143
5 408855
6 90111127
7 30101046
8 209955
9 414423
10 208852
11 7-3345
12 307734
13 416645
14 708854
15 504427
* The notations are as shown in the footer of Table 1.
Table A2. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours—Phase 2 *.
Table A2. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours—Phase 2 *.
WTPPVPTVPCWTPPVPTVPC
1st2nd3rd4th2-32-42-11-21st2nd3rd4th2-32-42-11-2
09:00–10:0010:00–11:00
15.43 726281613 21374216
2 5034512 15087116
37.5 8074415 8186015
42.89 121143187.63 1112328
5 408551815.39 12451212
6 901127206.5211.66 18344112
7 3010462010.42 15264012
8 209551910.64 123111217
9 41423914.66 17335011
10 208521512.47 18266115
11 7-345120 12294116
12 307341415.03 16145010
13 416451511.3 14384217
14 708541715.9419.24 22255113
15 50427134.527.03 15373114
11:00–12:0012:00–13:00
110.64 5.45 1238421718.45 14373518
212.63 1429411613.07 17389323
311.413.4 7385117 21465318
43.16 5212321918.15 17378220
517.79 1326311214.24 13363012
68.3 8212301714.58 22274316
712.75 11310342021.78 19318416
86.69 43741157.66 7366318
98.69 838501610.18 152106523
1011.23 5383014 200107421
1110.64 757401620.58 202101114
120 818601514.71 15463013
13 636411421.94 28384015
14 5.86 537822013.2615.25 10293115
1514.37 112 1313.38 13386219
13:00–14:0014:00–15:00
116.62 213741158.87 10295218
25.8815.93 1536401318.09 25293115
30.45 1021370226.57 15284216
47.4 9110521816.42 231134018
5 5.46 1727521611.2813.48 12346215
68.01 6110601716.04 184102 16
713.41 1824821615.05 20214 16
8 1121051185.33 13385218
912.75 9363113 10.2 8164112
10 19113422011.4314.46 11210 113
1115.15 1548211512.67 8582 15
1214.40 163342128.21 64103219
1310.71 193731141 1584118
1418.59 25 930128.4412.92 16472215
1516.71 274832178.6912.54 5264214
15:00–16:0016:00–17:00
15.14 163650146.24 64105120
2 121850144.4 153123220
315.45 1535721714.16 8494219
412.68 1921142198.62 6365014
510.51 1228631918.57 16265114
615.56 1331342229.26 6441110
711.56 16357217 92147225
87.7 141731124.5610.91 12286016
917.39 21268117 82132118
10 1419411517.9 16165315
118.29 162762178.02 6479222
1212.15 213652165.2 8349218
1316.67 1832811410.32 103106120
1410.6 1111291234.55 11192113
1513.12 16298221 71122015
17:00–18:00
110.51 16364114
216.73 25265316
39.05 12337013
4 160612119
514.98 152117121
625.23 202111115
716.14 151710119
8 181146122
914.57 152124018
109.7813.08 171113116
1117.02 22293115
123.465 72116120
1310.65 16378220
1410.82 12293014
155.78 211142118
* The notations are as shown in the footer of Table 2.

Appendix B

Results of the evening peak period study for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 2 and Entrance 4, and for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours for Phase 3.
Table A3. Data for the period 18:00–19:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
Table A3. Data for the period 18:00–19:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
WT
1-2
PPVP
1-2
WT
3-2
VP
3-2
WTV
3-2
VPV
3-2
VP
1-3
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd
118.47 24221.0123.49 3 49
211.4910.56 14214.97 2 4
3 13014.92 3 69
411.55 17312.929.82 3 6
56.78 1526.4712.62 3 510
613.27 18216.1 3 5
717.53 11317.53 3 612
85.2 124 29.8 3 7
98.86 9312.49 2 38
1015.37 17330.75 4 7
1112.8 8312.816.22 3 39
1216.95 15216.9525.3 4 6
1321.2 17310.5124.79 2 712
1420.68 21232.5 2 4
1514.85 51 28.3 269
1614.32 19310.85 2 5
17 10210.58 3 38
1813.15 7318.9830.01 2 5
19 21016.47 1 45
2011.19 13114.53 1 2
2113.65 16116.2220.32 4 49
2214.05 19326 3 6
239.7815.68 9211.88 4 612
24 14012.2119.52 4 4
2516.67 13210.4621.6723.033 49
2617.21 255 34.04 2 7
2731.01 17321.96 4 411
2811.79 13225.62 1 3
2918.83 16214.57 3 510
30 11013.39 2 2
31 26019.59 2 27.35169
3210.06 1310 1
33 16111.2714.49 2 47
3412.48 152 9.08 2 4
3516.41 17112.15 1 35
3610.11 12113.4319.97 3 4
3714.6 11219.46 3 49
3819.63 13216.56 3 5
3917 14220.62 2 30.481 5
4019.38 1627.5724.85 4 6
Total: 59278 94 118727059278
* The notations are as shown in the footer of Table 3.
Table A4. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours, for pedestrians crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
Table A4. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours, for pedestrians crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
WT
1-2
PPVP
1-2
WT
3-2
VP
3-2
WTV
3-2
VPV
3-2
VP
1-3
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd
09:00–10:00
112.59 685.53 211.41 1112
2 11510.15 2 29
3 4414.56 318.04 1311
411.26 4311.52 3 713
513.93 856.78 2 18
6 377.13 4 011
7 469.63 2 210
8 1156.73 210.94 1311
9 2324.69 2 49
1025.21 829.56 1 25
115.12 758.01 1 17
127.01 1423.24 4 08
13 9510.45 3 412
147.94 9411.15 2 39
15 6715.58 4 415
10:00–11:00
116.48 12216.48 2 26
25.8 1410 1 57
3 70 33
413.3824.93 12224.93 2 48
520.48 25223.02 1 47
60 819.21 2 58
70 700 0 55
812.63 12216.88 1 25
9 1609.01 1 45
1020.18 9120.2 1 46
115.74 918.61 3 610
12 907.31 3 36
130 3206.71 3 38
145.26 13123.69 2 58
15 8111.81 3 59
11:00–12:00
115.28 13215.28 4 28
28.6 818.6 1 13
30 1018.1 2 25
419.03 9213.07 2 26
50 14114.19 2 36
6 806.68 2 57
715.54 15417.45 7.764 311
816.42 13116.42 5 410
9 700 1 56
10 202 0 44
11 130 13.41 3 25
12 100 10.21 3 36
13 11120.24 1 57
145.31 529.59 5 310
15 410 1 57
12:00–13:00
117.07 20522.86 2 310
213.08 18321.08 1 26
314.39 1030 0 58
425.85 15225.85 2 59
5 1300 0 55
6 153 3 410
718.73 8415.82 3 310
827.03 10329.1 1 48
920.55 23520.55 4 312
1024.27 20430.68 3 310
1121.93 22127.62 2 710
12 10017.24 5 712
13 21016.5818.54 4 48
14 141 30.58 3913
15 14217.72 2 59
13:00–14:00
1 12110.33 1 46
2 190 44
3 18012.56 2 35
410.54 13215.41 2 48
54.7912.58 1527.98 2 59
6 10010.8215.89 5 510
719.92 11217.28 3 27
812.47 18126.65 2 36
920.45 13118.8 2 25
1014.46 15217.6524.65 2 48
1118.13 30118.13 2 14
1215.57 1 8218.5 3 510
13 13112.49 3 48
14 16013.19 3 36
1513.6 25217.22 2 37
14:00–15:00
17.41 11215.25 2 37
2 416.12 3 26
3 12221.71 2 37
4 16013.26 2 15.55147
5 52 5.38 237
6 15 6.8910.25 2 10.25114
7 11 15.81 3 47
8 13213.71 3 38
910.61 12114.06 4 510
1010.58 11116.98 2 69
11 4 1 23
126.78 6220.7924.56 3 49
13 1617.15 2 36
14 10210.77 4 28
1512.14 8210.04 3 510
15:00–16:00
1 15021.41 3 710
2 10011.32 1 12
311.7130.91 21230.91 2 37
417.9325.07 25225.07 2 37
5 16311.6524.92 2 49
617.56 8213.16 4 39
715.63 15212.88 2 610
814.47 12117.22 3 48
99.92 18112.65 3 48
1015.24 16121.41 2 36
1121.88 21224.25 3 38
1216.923.53 9223.53 2 48
1316.22 12121.9326.75 2 36
1416.16 15114.85 3 48
1515.49 13216.79 2 59
16:00–17:00
117.04 9114.42 2 47
210.23 9215.53 2 610
310.98 13216.25 1 36
4 1106.83 2 79
511.24 71 89
612.67 1510 67
715.12 12219.4333.46 3 38
8 909.6 3 58
9 13111.9820.97 3 26
1020.43 14326.98 2 49
118.1622.15 11225.75 2 48
1213.15 1029.28 3 510
13 318.55 3 610
1414.43 9117.19 3 48
15 6014.82 3 58
17:00–18:00
114.91 1019.514.91 4 38
217.83 1230 1 610
3 26025.51 1 78
411.48 6112.58 3 711
514.11 171 67
617.17 15121.94 2 58
75.44 5110.59 1 68
825.4 21127.7 1 46
9 10020.6324.55 3 69
1017.22 13118.44 3 37
1110.63 6113.25 2 14
1212.54 1818.47 3 37
1312.92 1220 57
14 13013.01 2 46
1520.45 18124.1 2 47
* The notations are as shown in the footer of Table 3.
Table A5. Data for the period 18:00–19:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
Table A5. Data for the period 18:00–19:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
WT
3-4
PPVP
3-4
WT
1-4
VP
1-4
WTV
1-4
VPV
1-4
VP
3-1
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th5th1st2nd3rd4th5th
120.79 16517.3 4 21.79 1414
24.15 417.63 6 7
3 6514.82 3 513
423.7 24218.51 4 6
513 1149.52 2 19 1310
62.97 91 22.65 1 2
7 8412.22 4 18.81 1918
8 408.01 5.786 6
93.711.82 106 18.88 4616
1011.98 5218.4321.65 4 6
1123.66 15615.25 5 213
1214.94 16523.34 5 10
1318.36 20324.2 4 411
1412.51 7114.93 3 4
15 757.38 4 312
16 1005.93 5 5
1715.0126.38 11610.8520.16 4 515
1814.54 10122.32 5 28.68 1 7
198.76 3712 3 24.69 1617
202.59 129.9917.14 4 6
219.15 4712.31 6 518
2215.32 9122.54 4 5
23 1016.5210.9724.32 3 26
248.43 52 18.41 4 6
2512.86 13523.1927.37 6 516
2615.18 8110.6118.22 7 8
275.41 16315.53 5 614
2816.64 17224.38 4 6
293.09 6613.7 6 5.64 1619
302.31 2412.39 5 9
318.37 74 17.78 5413
328.04 4315.51 5 8
33 234.82 6 615
34 1205 0
355.63 443.36 7 617
36 706.77 6 11.42 1 7
37 349.2211.32 5 312
38 609.08 6.78 5 5
3919.22 8315.45 4 7
40 14011.65 6 6
Total: 354119 165 2190395354119 165 2190395
* The designations are as shown in the footer of Table 4.
Table A6. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours, for pedestrians crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
Table A6. Data for 15 cycles for each hour of the study period during off-peak hours, for pedestrians crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
WT
3-4
PPVP
3-4
WT
1-4
VP
1-4
WTV
1-4
VPV
1-4
VP
3-1
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th5th1st2nd3rd4th5th
09:00–10:00
1 1026.86 4 39
28.54 42- 28.78 2915
3 5013.28 2 46
44.16 8110.11 410.11 611
56.88 524.44 3 49
6 4116.74 1 68
7 0019.96 223.86 259
83.83 517.73 219.78 238
9 4214.14 2 913
101.26 429.56 213.11 3714
112.45 727.81 39.48 1612
12 229.04 4 511
13 6212.59 8 414
14 3211.58 5 29
15 419.85 3 59
10:00–11:00
1 1668.62 6.84 6 113
224.15 15320.84 4 310
30 556.12 6 314
417.05 18225.69 1 47
511.61 12421.98 5 615
622.02 31518.95 5 111
7 2445.07 5.88 5 312
825.67 25520.52 4 211
9 2349.64 5 413
1017.58 17517.58 5 212
1110.04 26322.65 2 49
12 1858.444 2 411
13 2048.83 6 515
14 2231317.72 2 510
159.98 21711.83 1 513
11:00–12:00
1 1046.78 3 07
210.38 6215.19 6 412
3 449.19 10.38 6 515
46.64 8621.71 3 514
5 7311.5 7 313
6 16516.29 5.89 6 314
7 1310.37 4 18
8 9411.43 4 210
94.74 455.85.72 6 314
1025.84 15213.19 5 411
11 1039.89 5.46 7 010
1212.0418.42 11619.19 6 214
13 830.12 5 210
146.91 457.09 47.09 1414
15014.89 7617.4518.21 7 316
12:00–13:00
121.18 8418.05 5 817
2 15523.58 4 615
3 25321.05 4 310
4 16516.28 6 516
524.58 21424.13 6 616
617.07 30128.37 4 611
715.83 15616.2 5 415
8 16412.73 4 311
922.4 42223.58 3 27
107.7613.01 13312.81 8 314
1120.08 22725.58 6 619
1212.76 18214.95 5 714
1328.78 30530.58 4 615
140 6715.89 15.8915.893 414
1514.11 16423.32 3 613
13:00–14:00
120.11 15725.39 3 515
2 8310.513.54 6 514
316.53 16520.78 4 615
4 15415.18 5 918
520.82 25328.04 2 49
618.49 17413.19 5 514
716.98 17513 4 615
8 18313.2618.08 5 412
95.4 8322.98 3 511
1019 18624.3 3 514
1112.86 20321.9234.47 3 39
1219.7 22425.91 3 29
13 20523.7526.46 4 211
1416.91 18510.97 5 414
158.5321.63 28227.21 3 38
14:00–15:00
118.4520.89 16514.4 26.84 4 615
24.8211.7318.1715623.23 2 614
321.2 25214.9721.2 3 510
417.69 23333.93 2 38
59.52 18513.36 5 212
68.83 13410.1314.6 5 312
76.2516.8 17415.98 4 19
825.47 21317.86 4 411
9 7713.4625.25 6 215
10 627.88 8 212
1113.72 14425.0428.59 3 310
12 11311.116.25 4 512
1314.99 10720.5 4 213
14 556.38 7 315
1515.78 16518.56 4 20.56 1414
15:00–16:00
119.39 28415.9525.8 3 411
222.6 32527.45 3 917
3 15317.45 5 412
423.22 35525.87 2 512
525.35 12912.35 6.05 5 317
615.68 11319.64 3 410
720.46 25415.24 5 8.45 1818
823.16 34425.28 5 312
924.74 26521.54 5 515
1017.66 32429.46 2 814
1129.67 28516.0225 4 312
1212.1428.88 21724.01 4 415
1325.19 26521.47 5 515
1420.44 31614.65 4 9.99 1314
1520.7925.64 25723.94 5 517
16:00–17:00
119.24 9611.55 4 616
212.53 8425.12 310.15 1715
3 9212.218.24 5 916
415.41 12418.63 8.45 5 211
516.01 13413.31 6 313
620.06 17425.29 3 512
717.5822.13 21413.4723.56 4 8.89 1514
8 10415.38 6 414
9 246.98 11 217
1013.45 6611.09 6 315
11 13417.86 4 412
1214.98 11514.9822.34 5 313
13 11411.87 6 212
1416.97 10711.3116.97 4 516
15 7510.94 5 313
17:00–18:00
124.52 25218.86 3 38
28.15 7218.94 6 1018
326.03 23510.9619.66 5 111
426.6 18914.9622.28 8.02 5 216
521.95 307 1 1523
6 17413.26 5 514
7 15620.31 4 515
817.3222.05 23822.05 4.47 3 415
915.61 9.621719.14 28.6 4 718
10 17220.56 25.84 3 510
1111.02 7518.62 6 213
126.77 548.4220.9228.4 4 513
13 9510.818.11 6 112
148.8 6413.04 5 110
1515.6 16424.3 4 311
* The designations are as shown in the footer of Table 4.

References

  1. Nkurunziza, D.; Tafahomi, R.; Augustin Faraja, I. Pedestrian Safety: Drivers’ Stopping Behavior at Crosswalks. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Fu, T.; Xie, S.; Li, R.; Wang, J.; Zhang, L.; Sobhani, A.; Fang, S. Investigating Pedestrian Crossing Patterns at Crossing Locations Based on Trajectory Data Collected by UAV. J. Adv. Transp. 2023, 5529970, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Grozev, D.; Beloev, I. Methodology for Using Unmanned Aircraft Devices for Photographing and Subsequent Analysis of Road Junctions. AIP Conf. Proc. 2024, 3129, 070003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Damyanov, I. Implementation of advanced software solutions and systems for transport traffic research and control. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 878, 012044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Evstatiev, B.; Balbuzanov, T.; Beloev, I.; Pencheva, V. Intelligent system for improved safety of pedestrian traffic lights. Transp. Probl. 2019, 14, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Amin, G.; Khan, P.Z.; Shehzad Khattak, K.; Ahmad, Z. Impact of Pedestrians Crossing Road Width on Vehicles Traffic Flow at IJP Road. Pak. J. Eng. Technol. 2021, 4, 117–123. [Google Scholar]
  7. Moran, M.; Laefer, D. Multiscale Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Distance. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2024, 92, 290–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Savova-Mratsenkova, M.; Palagachev, G. Graph-analytic approach to determine the position of the initial impact in the event of pedestrian accidents. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 878, 012042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Knoop, V.; Daganzo, C. The Effect of Crosswalks on Traffic Flow. Eur. J. Transp. Infrastruct. Res. 2018, 18, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vu Tu, T.; Sano, K. Effect of Crossing Pedestrians on Traffic Flow in Urban Streets. In Proceedings of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 18–21 September 2017; Volume 11. [Google Scholar]
  11. Gao, L.; Liu, M.; Feng, J. Delay Modeling of Ped-Veh System Based on Pedestrian Crossing at Signalized Intersection. Procedia-Soc. Behav. Sci. 2012, 43, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  12. Agarwal, S.; Vikram, D. Impact of vehicular traffic stream on pedestrian crossing behavior at an uncontrolled mid-block section. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2021, 9, 100298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sun, X.; Lin, K.; Wang, Y.; Ma, S.; Lu, H. A Study on Pedestrian–Vehicle Conflict at Unsignalized Crosswalks Based on Game Theory. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ma, W.; Liao, D.; Liu, Y.; Kam Lo, H. Optimization of pedestrian phase patterns and signal timings for isolated intersection. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015, 58, 502–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alomari, A.; Khedaywi, T.; Shdooh, H. Investigation of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Signalized Intersections in Jordan. Adv. Transp. Stud. 2023, LIX, 147–164. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gitelman, V.; Sharon, A. An Examination of Pedestrian Crossing Behaviors at Signalized Intersections with Bus Priority Routes. Sustainability 2025, 17, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Simeunović, M.; Jović, A.; Pitka, P.; Dobrić, M. The Impact of Uncertainty on Pedestrians’ Decision to Start Roadway Crossing during the Clearance Phase. Complexity 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharma, V. Pedestrian Signal Violation and Its Impact on Vehicular Delay. In Recent Advances in Civil Engineering for Sustainable Communities. IACESD 2023; Menon, N.V.C., Kolathayar, S., Rodrigues, H., Sreekeshava, K.S., Eds.; Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering; Springer: Singapore, 2024; Volume 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hashimoto, Y.; Gu, Y.; Hsu, L.-T.; Iryo-Asano, M.; Kamijo, S. A probabilistic model of pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized intersections for connected vehicles. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016, 71, 164–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Distefano, N.; Leonardi, S.; Pulvirenti, G. Analysis of Pedestrian Crossing Behaviour at Roundabout. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 60, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mladenov, G.; Stoyanov, S. Application of methodology for the organization of a roundabout to increase the capacity of a conventional intersection of Sofia. Part II: Road traffic loading. AIP Conf. Proc. 2024, 3078, 050006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Mladenov, G. Application of methodology for the organization of a roundabout to increase the capacity of a conventional intersection of Sofia. Part I: Geometric characteristics. AIP Conf. Proc. 2024, 3078, 050005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rossi, D.; Mascolo, A.; Guarnaccia, C. Calibration and Validation of a Measurements-Independent Model for Road Traffic Noise Assessment. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 6168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dimitrov, K.; Valkovski, T.; Damyanov, I.; Mladenov, G. Petrol and Diesel Engines Sound Measuring and Analyzing in Real Road Conditions. In Proceedings of the 2022 30th National Conference with International Participation (TELECOM), Sofia, Bulgaria, 27–28 October 2022; pp. 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gaffney, J.; Marley, N. The impacts of combustion emissions on air quality and climate—From coal to biofuels and beyond. Atmos. Environ. 2009, 43, 23–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Dimitrov, E.; Peychev, M.; Tashev, A. Study of the hydrogen influence on the combustion parameters of diesel engine. Int. J. Hydrog. Energy 2025, 123, 219–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dimitrov, E.; Tashev, A. CNG effect on performance parameters of diesel engine operated on dual-fuel mode. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 2449, 050009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tashev, A.; Dimitrov, E. LPG effect on performance parameters of diesel engine operated on dual-fuel mode. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 2449, 050010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Organization and numbering of traffic flows at the intersection of “8th December” Street and “Acad. Stefan Mladenov” Street.
Figure 1. Organization and numbering of traffic flows at the intersection of “8th December” Street and “Acad. Stefan Mladenov” Street.
Engproc 150 00105 g001
Figure 2. Phase plan of the intersection of “8th December” Street and “Acad. Stefan Mladenov” Street.
Figure 2. Phase plan of the intersection of “8th December” Street and “Acad. Stefan Mladenov” Street.
Engproc 150 00105 g002
Figure 3. Average delay time for vehicles in Phase 1.
Figure 3. Average delay time for vehicles in Phase 1.
Engproc 150 00105 g003
Figure 4. Average delay time for vehicles in Phase 2.
Figure 4. Average delay time for vehicles in Phase 2.
Engproc 150 00105 g004
Figure 5. Average delay time for vehicles caused by crossing pedestrians (WTP) and by other vehicles (WTC) in Phase 3.
Figure 5. Average delay time for vehicles caused by crossing pedestrians (WTP) and by other vehicles (WTC) in Phase 3.
Engproc 150 00105 g005
Table 1. Morning and evening peak period data—Phase 1 *.
Table 1. Morning and evening peak period data—Phase 1 *.
08:00–09:0018:00–19:00
WTPPVPTVPCWTPPVPTVPC
1st2nd3rd4th4-14-24-31st2nd3rd4th4-14-24-3
1 4613 1918.2 1534 4
211.5 17212 1411.35 847 7
3 2810 1813.17 956 6
4 3710 1714.63 1655 5
5 105611213.83 31.22 104426
66.71 4614 208.8212.14 838 8
710.65 8512 179.65 857 7
812.43 9512 1724.66 2639 9
97.35 6410 1410.91 185819
1010.6517.3 761211910.5 1067 7
11 12.74 10491149.0215.05 839 9
12 281112010.91 1358 8
139.71 10510 158.16 11.92166516
148.59 5810 1817.24 1536 6
15 3.1 95101168.9 94415
166.710.12 6511 167.63 425 5
1710.64 16414 1816.71 1536 6
1812.26 16513 187.64 1058 8
19 5514 1910.97 1247 7
20 4410 1410.2 1348 8
216.85 1219 1012.19 8310 10
225.899.85 4381124.810.87 639 9
23 22.35 2538 1110.08 104628
2411.95 2059 146.7 248 8
2510.04 1179 162.312.96 959110
2616.26 2821011316.13 1147 7
2712.33 1369 1512.9 124527
2811.25 967 1312.81 1837 7
2919.06 25410 1415.78 1039211
30 8.42 56921715.81 8410 10
313.849.29 11510 1516.19 7510111
32 2108 810.26 764 4
338.48 1039 129.33 452 2
345.99 53811211.14 9510 10
353.12 347 1111.38 105628
3615.02 18310 1313.49 2149 9
379.6 658 1312.7 13213 13
386.97 9661133.83 6210 10
399.38 1378 156.128.47 849 9
4015.95 19410 1410.34 7311 11
Total: 42019039511596 42916029515310
* WT—Waiting time, respectively, for first, second, third or fourth vehicle waiting for pedestrians to pass; PP is how many pedestrians are able to pass; VP—passed vehicles of respective flows; TVPC—total passed vehicles of each phase; Total—total passed pedestrians or vehicles of each flow.
Table 2. Morning and evening peak period data—Phase 2 *.
Table 2. Morning and evening peak period data—Phase 2 *.
08:00–09:0018:00–19:00
WTPPVPTVPCWTPPVPTVPC
1st2nd3rd4th2-32-42-11-21st2nd3rd4th2-32-42-11-2
114.28 9182112 5.86 10396220
29.19 4313322110.23 15285217
313.35 7464014 51118020
48.36 92852178.12 101106320
5 61941154.87 122136223
6 82142018 14 95216
7 10073010 8 97319
812.7 511210144.27 43105422
9 611082218.47 12473317
10 62581169.76 151125321
113.09 11115017 41132319
122.65 52940158.1 15189220
13 7111701913.63 72104319
14 301261197.63 23295218
156.3 1028611715.13 8184114
16 40107320 4.89 10278320
174.73 7311912417.29 16296219
1813.33 1029621914.64 9297321
195.68 8111812115.21 10275014
206.71 42840144.55 92113117
21 51128021 123104118
2210.61 9284014 4.85 43105321
233.23 8165113 221123218
248.73 16383115 7 97016
25 1801360198.04 152105219
268.01 51871178.89 13186520
2710.23 144962215.59 15184316
2811.62 1311242192.64 53115221
295.13 91970178.23 71106219
309.33 82862183.8414.6117.72 8394016
317.86 641084265.8 101113015
32 7 653144.09 4.79 83105119
335.73 91850148.17 13284115
34 511320163.3 8294217
353.16 41860155.07 10177116
36 7 68014 7.57 9384116
37 7395219 8185216
388.09 92671167.46 6296219
394.08 141750135.94 10186217
40 536301212.36 81105218
Total: 3076336421237676 4146937420778728
* WT—Waiting time, respectively, for first, second, third or fourth vehicle waiting for pedestrians to pass; PP is how many pedestrians are able to pass; VP—passed vehicles of respective flows; TVPC—total passed vehicles of each phase; Total—total passed pedestrians or vehicles of each flow.
Table 3. Data for the period 08:00–09:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
Table 3. Data for the period 08:00–09:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 2—Phase 3 *.
WT
1-2
PPVP
1-2
WT
3-2
VP
3-2
WTV
3-2
VPV
3-2
VP
1-3
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd1st2nd
115.75 13115.75 2 16.131610
27.1 4213.43 2 48
3 1007.69 3 36
411.64 15211.6423.56 2 15
5 416.68 3 26
6 608.07 3 36
7 10012.01 1 45
8 608.86 3 47
97.88 3210.2 1 47
105.98 1718.53 3 37
11 404.6 4 48
12 6010.23 3 47
13 7010.69 2 35
147.42 91 23.25 258
159.48 31 14.88 179
1624.16 8327.05 1 04
178.24 5115.63 3 37
1811.14 11212.58 2 37
1913.58 5110.94 2 58
20 16012.64 1 23
21 8012.38 4 37
22 20018.63 1 45
2320.45 16125.56 2 69
2417.3 6111.93 2 25
25 9017.83 3 36
26 1315.47 1 46
2716.21 14219.23 1 47
28 16216.4918.69 2 37
29 5012.19 3 47
3013.98 8219.5 3 510
3113.39 2040 0 37
32 11317.6 3 410
33 6012.92 3 15.98238
34 900 4 15
35 1308.8118.69 2 35
36 6010 1 23
3711.3514.58 6211.3515.64 2 59
3820.01 11115.62 3 48
39 2000 3.953 25
40 7014.92 2 13
Total: 38637 86 613626538637
* WT—Waiting time, respectively, for first, second, third or fourth vehicle waiting for pedestrians to pass; PP is how many pedestrians are able to pass; VP—passed vehicles of respective flows; WTV—Waiting time, respectively, for first or second vehicle waiting for oncoming vehicles; VPV—passed vehicle that was waiting for oncoming vehicles; TVPC—total passed vehicles of each phase; Total—total passed pedestrians or vehicles of each flow.
Table 4. Data for the period 08:00–09:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
Table 4. Data for the period 08:00–09:00 for pedestrian flows crossing Entrance 4—Phase 3 *.
WT
3-4
PPVP
3-4
WT
1-4
VP
1-4
WTV
1-4
VPV
1-4
VP
3-1
TVPC
1st2nd3rd1st2nd3rd4th5th1st2nd3rd4th5th
1 74 513.92 11121
2 5410.31 513.16 1313
37.43 5313.48 5 311
4 55 8.02 4 110
5 11 3.45 4 2815
6 712.63 4 510
712.81 3517.57 4 918
8 25 4.47 76.25 5.891619
9 33 617.76 1717
10 14 15.46 313.35 1917
11 265.99 4 17.32 1718
12 7217.69 4 814
13 3310.51 4 16.08 1412
14 333.8112.93 6 8.46 1515
155.25 11224.15 4 814
1618.97 9524.67 3 614
17 1063.96 11.58 6 618
185.45 855.45 4 20.35 1717
19 11011.8324.98 4 913
20 235.21 7 515
21 7215.87 6 19.16 1716
2216.33 12312.0520.68 5 614
2314.16 18118.99 5 612
2419.98 19515.627.21 4 716
25 1628.79 5 512
2615.41 14615.4126.02 4 818
27 2155.26 6 213
28 12510.6416.08 5 717
29 10011.23 6 21.33 1512
307.62 9213.29 5 16.75 1311
31 6010.5 7 411
32 1127.4114.82 3 813
3312 13624.78 3 413
34 826.5814.75 5 310
35 545.77 4 3.75 1211
36 10313.3519.13 2 49
37 507.3 4 37
383.04 6411.37 20.20 127
3913.75 6120.04 3 26
40 73 6 211
Total: 320126 181 16217540320126 181 16217540
* WT—Waiting time, respectively, for first, second, third or fourth vehicle waiting for pedestrians to pass; PP is how many pedestrians are able to pass; VP—passed vehicles of respective flows; WTV—Waiting time, respectively, for first or second vehicle waiting for oncoming vehicles; VPV—passed vehicle that was waiting oncoming vehicles; TVPC—total passed vehicles of each phase; Total—total passed pedestrians or vehicles of each flow.
Table 5. The average delay time for vehicles in Phase 3 *.
Table 5. The average delay time for vehicles in Phase 3 *.
PeriodWTPWTC
1-23-23-41-43-21-4
08:00–09:0013.0612.5211.7113.0017.5614.25
18:00–19:0014.6417.4111.9513.8826.5118.89
09:00–18:0012.6714.7714.3516.586.056.73
* Period—Peak or off-peak period; WTP—Waiting time for vehicles caused by crossing pedestrians; WTC—Waiting time for vehicles caused by other vehicles.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saliev, D.; Valkovski, T.; Laskov, L.; Markov, M. Research on Traffic Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing at a Light-Regulated Intersection: Case Study of City of Sofia. Eng. Proc. 2026, 150, 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026150105

AMA Style

Saliev D, Valkovski T, Laskov L, Markov M. Research on Traffic Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing at a Light-Regulated Intersection: Case Study of City of Sofia. Engineering Proceedings. 2026; 150(1):105. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026150105

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saliev, Durhan, Tsvetan Valkovski, Lyubomir Laskov, and Milen Markov. 2026. "Research on Traffic Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing at a Light-Regulated Intersection: Case Study of City of Sofia" Engineering Proceedings 150, no. 1: 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026150105

APA Style

Saliev, D., Valkovski, T., Laskov, L., & Markov, M. (2026). Research on Traffic Delays Caused by Pedestrians Crossing at a Light-Regulated Intersection: Case Study of City of Sofia. Engineering Proceedings, 150(1), 105. https://doi.org/10.3390/engproc2026150105

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop