Investigating and Improving Pedestrian Safety in an Urban Environment of a Low- or Middle-Income Country: A Case Study of Yaoundé, Cameroon
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Generality
1.2. Aim
2. Site Characteristics and Research Methodology
2.1. Study Context
2.2. Pedestrian Safety Index
- PSI = the pedestrian safety index
- i = the indicator number
- c = the coefficient of safety indicator
- SI = safety indicator score
- c = the coefficient of safety indicator
- i = the indicator number
- j = depth of the evaluation number
- D = depth of the evaluation
- ▪
- D1 (incomplete)
- ▪
- D2 (semi-complete)
- ▪
- D3 (complete)
- PSI% = percentage of pedestrian safety index;
- PSI = pedestrian safety index;
- I = the indicator number;
- c = the coefficient of safety indicator;
2.3. Walkability Index
- GWI = quantification of the Global Walkability Index
- i = the variable number
- V = score of the variable
- Y = weight of the variable
- GWI% = percentage of Global Walkability Index, the rating value
- GWI = Global Walkability Index
- i = the variable number
- Y = weight of the variable
2.4. Data Collection
2.4.1. Site Selection and Timing
2.4.2. Data of Interest and Measurement Procedure
2.5. Data Analysis
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Pedestrian Safety Index
- SI1: Slower traffic speed
- SI3: Fewer travel lanes
- SI5: Shorter crossing distance (mid-block crossing)
- SI7: Footpath Pavement
- SI8: Marking (crosswalk)
- SI9: Physical pedestrian refuge and median
- SI11: Sidewalk on both sides
- SI13: Driveway
- SI14: Lighting
- SI15: Signing
- SI17: Running slope (in the longitudinal direction of the street)
- SI22: Ramp
- Other safety indicators
- Overall observation
3.2. Global Walkability Index
3.3. Comparison of Indicators
- Ps = Spearman’s rank-correlation coefficient (between −1 and 1);
- di = differences between ranks;
- n = number of paired data sets.
4. Recommendation
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2023. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/teams/social-determinants-of-health/safety-and-mobility/global-status-report-on-road-safety-2023 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- World Bank Group. Saving Lives through Private Investment in Road Safety. 2022. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099525002222214332/P1750030e6c58506b08d5b05ccba3311628 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- European Commission. Facts and Figures Pedestrians. European Road Safety Observatory. 2021. Available online: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/aaeb811d-f455-4fb0-8a79-7a373626952d_en?filename=FF_pedestrians_20220209.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Australian Government. Fact Sheet: Vulnerable Road Users. 2020. Available online: https://www.roadsafety.gov.au/nrss/fact-sheets/vulnerable-road-users (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- ENO Center for Transportation. Protecting Pedestrians, Our Most Vulnerable Road Users. 2022. Available online: https://enotrans.org/article/guest-op-ed-protecting-pedestrians-our-most-vulnerable-road-users/ (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Yannis, G.; Nikolaou, D.; Laiou, A.; Stürmer, Y.A.; Buttler, I.; Jankowska-Karpa, D. Vulnerable road users: Cross-cultural perspectives on performance and attitudes. IATSS Res. 2020, 44, 220–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD/ITF. Cycling, Health and Safety. 2013. Available online: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/transport/cycling-health-and-safety_9789282105955-en (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015. 2015. Available online: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/189242 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018. 2018. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565684 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- European Commission. Facts and Figures Pedestrians. European Road Safety Observatory. 2023. Available online: https://road-safety.transport.ec.europa.eu/document/download/58883bdc-4312-4665-a424-d5796658e14f_en?filename=ff_pedestrians_20230213.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- World Health Organization. Pedestrian Safety: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers and Practitioners. 2023. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/pedestrian-safety-a-road-safety-manual-for-decision-makers-and-practitioners (accessed on 18 January 2024).
- Davis, G.A. Relating severity of pedestrian injury to impact speed in vehicle-pedestrian crashes: Simple threshold model. Transp. Res. Rec. 2001, 1773, 108–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tefft, B.C. Impact speed and a pedestrian’s risk of severe injury or death. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013, 50, 871–878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Anderson, R.W.G.; McLean, A.J.; Farmer, M.J.B.; Lee, B.H.; Brooks, C.G. Vehicle Travel Speeds and The Incidence of Fatal Pedestrian Collisions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1997, 29, 667–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rosén, E.; Stigson, H.; Sander, U. Literature review of pedestrian fatality risk as a function of car impact speed. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hussain, Q.; Feng, H.; Grzebieta, R.; Brijs, T.; Olivier, J. The relationship between impact speed and the probability of pedestrian fatality during a vehicle-pedestrian crash: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 129, 241–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. Drinking and driving: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers And Practitioners. 2007. Available online: https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/documents/health-topics/road-traffic-injuries/drinking-driving_manual_eng.pdf?sfvrsn=d75bab8f_9&download=true (accessed on 5 December 2023).
- Živković, V.; Lukić, V.; Nikolić, S. The influence of alcohol on pedestrians: A different approach to the effectiveness of the new traffic safety law. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2016, 17, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic Safety Facts 2021 Data: Pedestrians. U.S. Department of Transportation. 2023. Available online: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813458 (accessed on 15 December 2023).
- Cairney, P.; Stephenson, W.; Macaulay, J. Preventing Crashes Involving Intoxicated Pedestrians Stage 1 Report: The Extent and Nature of the Problem Stage 2: An Analysis of Australian Coronial Records, 1999–2001. 2004. Available online: https://austroads.com.au/publications/road-safety/ap-r260-04 (accessed on 28 December 2023).
- Gonz, K. Evaluating Pedestrians’ Safety on Urban Intersections: A Visibility Analysis. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Health Organization. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. 2004. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/world-report-on-road-traffic-injury-prevention (accessed on 1 December 2023).
- Gomaa, M.; Saunier, N.; Miranda-moreno, L.F.; Ukkusuri, S.V. A clustering regression approach: A comprehensive injury severity analysis of pedestrian—Vehicle crashes in New York, US and Montreal, Canada. Saf. Sci. 2013, 54, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clifton, K.J.; Burnier, C.V.; Akar, G. Severity of injury resulting from pedestrian—Vehicle crashes: What can we learn from examining the built environment? Transp. Res. Part D 2009, 14, 425–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masoud, M.; Mahdian, M. Pedestrians: The Vulnerable Forgotten Road Users. Int. Arch. Health Sci. 2022, 9, 1–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- González-Hernández, B.; Usami, D.S.; Prasolenko, O.; Burko, D.; Galkin, A.; Lobashov, O.; Persia, L. The driver’s visual perception research to analyze pedestrian safety at twilight at twilight in a changing world. Transp. Res. Procedia 2020, 45, 827–834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mian, J.; Caird, J. Conspicuity of Pedestrians at Night_ How to Maximize Visibility and Safety (poster). J. Transp. Health 2017, 7, S4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.; Abdel-Aty, M. Comprehensive analysis of vehicle—Pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005, 37, 775–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abou-senna, H.; Radwan, E.; Asce, F.; Mohamed, A. A Methodology to Quantify Pedestrian Crash Rates against Statewide Averages for Roadways and Intersection. 2003. Available online: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:922457/FULLTEXT02.pdf (accessed on 5 December 2023).
- Federal Highway Administration. An Analysis of Factors Contributing to ‘Walking Along Roadway’ Crashes: Research Study and Guidelines for Sidewalks and Walkways; Federal Highway Administration: Washington, DC, USA, 2002.
- Hanson, C.S.; Noland, R.B.; Brown, C. The severity of pedestrian crashes: An analysis using Google Street View imagery. J. Transp. Geogr. 2013, 33, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Federal Highway Administration. Investigations of Exposure Based on Pedestrian Areas: Crosswalks, Sidewalks, Local Streets AND Major Arterials. 1999. Available online: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney1/library/countermeasures/notes.htm (accessed on 5 December 2023).
- Fondzenyuy, S.; Turner, B.; Burlacu, A.; Jurewicz, C. The Contribution of Excessive or Inappropriate Speeds to Road Traffic Crashes and Fatalities: A Review of Literature. SSRN 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Minkoumou, B. Circulation des Piétons et des Deux-Roues: Cas du Cameroun, Ministère des Travaux Publics. 2001. Available online: https://www.piarc.org/ressources/documents/actes-seminaires06/c31-togo06/8734,7-DIAPOS_PRESENTATION_BEKOLO_MINKOU.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2024).
- World Bank Group. Road Safety in Cameroon—Traffic Accidents, Crash, Fatalities. 2022. Available online: https://www.roadsafetyfacility.org/country/cameroon (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Évaluation de la Performance en Matière de Sécurité Routière (EPSR). 2018. Available online: https://unece.org/fr/transport/publications/evaluation-de-la-performance-en-matiere-de-securite-routiere-epsr-cameroun (accessed on 17 February 2024).
- Cameroon Tribune. Sécuroute Plaide pour les Piétons. 2013. Available online: http://ct2015.cameroon-tribune.cm/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73858:securoute-plaide-pour-les-pietons&catid=4:societe&Itemid=3 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Country Report. Traffic and Road Conditions in Cameroon. 2024. Available online: https://www.countryreports.org/country/Cameroon/traffic.htm (accessed on 17 February 2024).
- African Development Bank. La Sécurité des Deux-Roues Motorisés en Afrique. 2022. Available online: https://www.afdb.org/sites/default/files/documents/publications/la_securite_des_deux_roues_motorises_en_afrique_web.pdf (accessed on 17 February 2024).
- Bachmann, C.; Cabera, J.; Cornelis, L.; Croche, J.-C.; Maingret, S.; Fallous, C.; Zegha, A.; Ferro, P.S. Plan de Mobilité Urbaine Soutenable pour la Communauté Urbaine Rapport de de Yaoundé synthèse,” 2019. Available online: https://www.mobiliseyourcity.net/sites/default/files/2020-01/PMUS%20Yaound%C3%A9%20-%20Septembre%202019.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Juillard, C.; Alain, G.; Mballa, E.; Hyder, A.A. Patterns of Injury and Violence in Yaoundé Cameroon: An Analysis of Hospital Data. World J. Surg. 2010, 35, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- McGreevy, J.; Stevens, K.A.; Monono, M.E.; Mballa, G.A.E.; Ngamby, M.K.; Hyder, A.A.; Juillard, C. Road traffic injuries in Yaoundé, Cameroon: A hospital-based pilot surveillance study. Injury 2014, 45, 1687–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Michel, M.; Jean, W.; Nkeng, F.; Elambo, G.; Tamo, W.; Delore, G. Impact of road geometric design elements on road traffic accidents in the city of Yaounde Cameroon. Int. J. Eng. Innov. Technol. 2020, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Namatovu, S.; Balugaba, B.E.; Muni, K.; Ningwa, A.; Nsabagwa, L.; Oporia, F.; Kiconco, A.; Kyamanywa, P.; Mutto, M.; Osuret, J.; et al. Interventions to reduce pedestrian road traffic injuries: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials, cluster randomized controlled trials, interrupted. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0262681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pantangi, S.S.; Ahmed, S.S.; Fountas, G.; Majka, K.; Anastasopoulos, P.C. Do high visibility crosswalks improve pedestrian safety? A correlated grouped random parameters approach using naturalistic driving study data. Anal. Methods Accid. Res 2021, 30, 100155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fridman, L.; Ling, R.; Rothman, L.; Cloutier, M.S.; Macarthur, C.; Hagel, B.; Howard, A. Effect of reducing the posted speed limit to 30 km per hour on pedestrian motor vehicle collisions in Toronto, Canada—A quasi experimental, pre-post study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zein, S.R.; Geddes, E.; Hemsing, S.; Johnson, M. Pedestrian Studies. Transp. Res. Rec. 1997, 1578, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ewing, R. Impacts of Traffic Calming. 2001. Available online: https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/impacts_of_traffic_calming_ewing.pdf (accessed on 15 February 2024).
- Bunn, F.; Collier, T.; Frost, C.; Ker, K.; Roberts, I.; Wentz, R. Traffic calming for the prevention of road traffic injuries: Systematic review and meta—Analysis. Inj. Prev. 2003, 9, 200–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dutheil, F.; Pélangeon, S.; Duclos, M.; Vorilhon, P.; Mermillod, M. Protective Effect on Mortality of Active Commuting to Work: A Systematic Review and Meta—Analysis. Sports Med. 2020, 50, 2237–2250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. 2018. Available online: https://health.gov/physical-activity-guidelines/current-guidelines (accessed on 17 February 2024).
- World Health Organization. WHO Guidelines on Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240015128 (accessed on 10 February 2024).
- World Health Organization. Compendium of WHO and Other UN Guidance on Health and Environment Chapter 9. Safe Environments and Mobility. 2021. Available online: https://www.who.int/tools/compendium-on-health-and-environment/safe-environments-and-mobility (accessed on 10 March 2024).
- World Health Organization. Health and Economic Impacts of Transport Interventions in Accra, Ghana. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017306 (accessed on 19 February 2024).
- Transport for London. Walking and Cycling: The Economics Benefits. 2014. Available online: https://content.tfl.gov.uk/walking-cycling-economic-benefits-summary-pack.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Future Place Leadership. The Effect of Pedestrianisation and Bicycles on Local Business. 2020. Available online: https://futureplaceleadership.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Tallinn-High-Street-Case-studies-Future-Place-Leadership.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- World Bank Group. Investing for Momemtum in Active Mobility. 2021. Available online: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/36617 (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- UN Habitat. Walking and Cycling in Africa. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/walking-and-cycling-africa-evidence-and-good-practice-inspire-action (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Muhammad, A.; Verani, A.; Sihombing, R.; Hendrawan, H.; Vitriana, A.; Nugroho, A. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives Walkability and importance assessment of pedestrian facilities on central business district in capital city of Indonesia. Transp. Res. Interdiscip. Perspect. 2022, 16, 100695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lam, T.M.; Wang, Z.; Vaartjes, I.; Karssenberg, D.; Ettema, D.; Helbich, M.; Timmermans, E.J.; Frank, L.D.; Braver, N.R.D.; Wagtendonk, A.J.; et al. Development of an objectively measured walkability index for the Netherlands. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2022, 19, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Consoli, A.; Nettel-Aguirre, A.; Spence, J.C.; McHugh, T.-L.; Mummery, K.; McCormack, G.R. Associations between objectively-measured and self-reported neighbourhood walkability on adherence and steps during an internet-delivered pedometer intervention. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0242999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Campisi, T.; Tesoriere, G.; Skoufas, A.; Zeglis, D.; Andronis, C.; Basbas, S. ScienceDirect ScienceDirect Perceived Pedestrian Level of Service: The case of Thessaloniki, Perceived Pedestrian Level of Service: The case of Thessaloniki, Greece. Transp. Res. Procedia 2022, 60, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aprilnico, E.; Siregar, M.L. Pedestrian risk analysis at Jl. Raya Citayam—Jl. Boulevard Raya Grand Depok City intersection leg using pedestrian risk index. MATEC Web Conf. 2019, 276, 03011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvalai, G.; Diego, J.; Cadena, B.; Sparvoli, G.; Bernardini, G.; Quagliarini, E. Pedestrian Single and Multi-Risk Assessment to SLODs in Urban Built Environment: A Mesoscale Approach. Sustainability 2022, 14, 11233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marisamynathan, S. Pedestrian perception-based level-of-service model at signalized intersection crosswalks. J. Mod. Transp. 2019, 27, 266–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erlangga, D.; Handayani, D. Analysis of Walkability Index and Handling of Pedestrian Facilities of Slamet Riyadi Street, Surakarta Analysis of Walkability Index and Handling of Pedestrian Facilities of Slamet Riyadi Street, Surakarta. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2021, 1858, 012011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhaduri, E.; Bs, M.; Sen, J.; Maitra, B.; Goswami, A.K. Measuring User Satisfaction of Pedestrian Facilities and its Heterogeneity in Measuring User Satisfaction of Pedestrian Facilities and its Heterogeneity in Urban India—A Tale of Three Cities. J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud. 2019, 13, 144–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Mukaram, N.; Musa, S.S. Determination of Pedestrian Level of Service on Sidewalks in Samawah City Determination of Pedestrian Level of Service on Sidewalks in Samawah City. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 928, 022077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESRA. ESRA, Who Are We and What Do We Do? 2020. Available online: https://www.esranet.eu/ (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Lee, S.; Han, M.; Rhee, K.; Bae, B. Identification of Factors Affecting Pedestrian Satisfaction toward Land Use and Street Type. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbosa, S.; Guerra, P.H.; Santos, C.D.O.; Paula, A.; Barbosa, D.O.; Turrell, G. Walkability, Overweight, and Obesity in Adults: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saelens, B.E.; Handy, S.L. Built Environment Correlates of Walking: A Review Brian. NIH Public Access 2008, 40, S550–S566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mayne, D.J.; Morgan, G.G.; Willmore, A.; Rose, N.; Jalaludin, B. An objective index of walkability for research and planning in the Sydney Metropolitan Region of New South Wales, Australia: An ecological study. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2013, 12, 61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, J.; Glass, T.A.; Curriero, F.C.; Stewart, W.F.; Schwartz, B.S. Health & Place The built environment and obesity: A systematic review of the epidemiologic evidence. Health Place 2010, 16, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodríguez, D.A. An Easy to Compute Index for Identifying Built Environments That Support Walking An Easy to Compute Index for Identifying Built Environments That Support Walking. 2006. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/252050684_An_easy_to_compute_index_for_identifying_built_environments_that_support_walking (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Frank, L.D.; Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.E.; Leary, L.; Cain, K.; Conway, T.L.; Hess, P.M. The development of a walkability index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. Br. J. Sports Med. 2010, 44, 924–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall Planning & Engineering. HPE’s Walkability Index—Quantifying the Pedestrian Experience. 2010. Available online: https://hpe-inc.com/hpes-walkability-index-quantifying-the-pedestrian-experience/ (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- McCormack, G.R.; Shiell, A.; Giles-Corti, B.; Begg, S.; Veerman, J.L.; Geelhoed, E.; Amarasinghe, A.; Emery, J.H. The association between sidewalk length and walking for different purposes in established neighborhoods. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2012, 9, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Virginia, K.H. The Global Walkability Index; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006; Available online: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/34409#files-area (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- World Bank Group. Addis Ababa Sidewalk Safety and Improvement Study. 2022. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099414303282215574/pdf/IDU0050ff322056220452a0978409bb2e7268adf.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Mōri, M.; Tsukaguchi, H. Transportation Research Part A: General A new method for evaluation of level of service in pedestrian facilities. Transp. Res. Part A 1987, 21, 223–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dandan, T.A.N.; Wei, W. Research on Methods of Assessing Pedestrian Level of Service for Sidewalk. J. Transp. Syst. Eng. 2007, 7, 74–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kadali, B.R.; Vedagiri, P. Evaluation of pedestrian crosswalk level of service (LOS) in perspective of type of land-use. Transp. Res. Part A 2015, 73, 113–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wen, Y.; Yan, K.Y. Level of Service Standards for Pedestrian Facilities in Shanghai Metro Stations. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Transportation Engineering 2007, Chengdu, China, 22–24 July 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Shah, M.Z. Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service Non-motorised Level of Service: Addressing Challenges in Pedestrian and Bicycle Level of Service. Transp. Rev. 2013, 33, 166–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petritsch, T.A.; Landis, B.W.; McLeod, P.S.; Huang, H.F.; Challa, S.; Skaggs, C.L.; Guttenplan, M.; Vattikuti, V. Pedestrian Level-of-Service Model for Urban Arterial Facilities with Sidewalks. J. Transp. Res. Board 2006, 1982, 84–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Shah, M.Z. Land Use Policy A pedestrian level of service method for evaluating and promoting walking facilities on campus streets. Land Use Policy 2014, 38, 175–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moeinaddini, M.; Asadi-shekari, Z.; Ros, C.; Zaly, M. Land Use Policy A practical method for evaluating parking area level of service. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muraleetharan, T.; Adachi, T.; Hagiwara, T.; Kagaya, S.; Member, S. Method to Determine Overall Level-Of-Service of Pedestrians on Sidewalks Based on Total Utility Value. Infrastruct. Plan. Rev. 2005, 22, 685–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanaka, K. Ottawa Pedestrian Safety Evaluation Tool. In Proceedings of the 2012 Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, Fredericton, NB, Canada, 14–17 October 2012; pp. 1–16. Available online: http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/annualconference/tac2012/docs/session16/tanaka.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Chaudhari, A.R.; Gore, N.; Arkatkar, S.; Joshi, G.; Pulugurtha, S.S. Deriving Pedestrian Risk Index by Vehicle Type and Road Geometry at Midblock Crosswalks under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions. J. Transp. Eng. Part A Syst. 2020, 146, 04020123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- King, M.J.; Soole, D.; Ghafourian, A. Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections: Incidence and relative risk. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2009, 41, 485–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diogenes, M.C.; Lindau, L.A. Evaluation of Pedestrian Safety at Midblock Crossings, Porto Alegre, Brazil. J. Transp. Res. Board 2010, 2193, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cafiso, S.; Alfonso, M.; Rojas, R. Crosswalk Safety evaluation using a Pedestrian Risk Index as Traffic Conflict Measure. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Road Safety and Simulation, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 14–16 September 2011; Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/1286233 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Asadi-shekari, Z.; Moeinaddini, M.; Zaly, M. Pedestrian safety index for evaluating street facilities in urban areas. Safety 2015, 74, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ntumngia, L.; Fombe, L. Agony of Circulation in the Bamenda Metropolitan Area of the North West Region of Cameroon. Int. J. Arts Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2022, 3, 78–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- VIAS Institute. E Survey of Road Users Attitude: Cameroon. 2020. Available online: https://www.esranet.eu/storage/minisites/esra2019countryfactsheetcameroon-fr.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- World Bank. Pedestrian Mobility for Urban Growth: Walking and Its Links to Transportation. 2018. Available online: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/entities/publication/863a9943-2c47-52a1-b431-378229f7e3d4 (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Clarke. City of Ottawa Road Corridor Planning & Design Guidelines October 2008. 2008. Available online: https://documents.ottawa.ca/sites/documents/files/documents/con040685.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Sutherland, A.; Petersen, G.M. Street Design Guidelines. 2006. Available online: https://pdfcoffee.com/download/street-design-2-pdf-free.html (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- City of Chicago. Street and Site Plan Design Standards. 2007. Available online: https://www.chicago.gov/dam/city/depts/cdot/StreetandSitePlanDesignStandards407.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- City of New York. Street Design Manual. 2009. Available online: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/NYCDOT-Street-Design-Manual-2009.pdf (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- City of Aurora. Aurora Urban Street Standards. 2003. Available online: https://cdnsm5-hosted.civiclive.com/UserFiles/Servers/Server_1881137/File/Business Services/Zoning and Codes/Building and Zoning/005478.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- Federal Highway Administration. Accessible Sidewalks and Street Crossings—An informational Guide. 2001. Available online: https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/accessible_sidewalks_and_street_crossings_boodlal.pdf (accessed on 17 January 2024).
- City of Minneapolis. Design Guidelines for Streets and Sidewalks. 2017; pp. 1–14. Available online: https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/RCAV2/2921/25f-Design-Guidelines-for-Streets-and-Sidewalks-Assessment-11-21_.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2024).
- Charlotte Department of Transportation. Urban Street Design Guidelines. 2007. Available online: https://www.charlottenc.gov/files/sharedassets/city/v/1/growth-and-development/documents/dev-center-fees/manual/usdg-full-document.pdf (accessed on 10 March 2024).
- City of Tacoma. Mobility Master Plan Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines. 2009. Available online: https://cms.cityoftacoma.org/Planning/MoMaP/MoMaPDesignGuidelines_PublicReviewDraft.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- City of Whittlesea. Guidelines for Urban Development. 2009. Available online: https://www.whittlesea.vic.gov.au/media/kqbf1mg1/guidelines-for-urban-development-manual-accessible.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024).
- National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. 2013. Available online: https://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/ (accessed on 5 March 2024).
- National Association of City Transportation Officials. Global Street Design Guide. 2016, pp. 1–4. Available online: https://nacto.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/ (accessed on 10 March 2024).
- Mfoulou, O. Urbanisation, Mobilité et Fonctionnement de L’offre de Transport à Yaoundé. In Proceedings of the 8th Africa Population Conference, Entebbe, Uganda, 18–22 November 2019; pp. 1–14. Available online: https://uaps2019.popconf.org/abstracts/190063 (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- EduRANK. List of 4 Best Universities in Yaounde. 2024. Available online: https://edurank.org/geo/yaounde/#google_vignette (accessed on 18 February 2024).
- Ambassade de France au Cameroun. Fiche Cameroun 2018 I-Organisation de L’enseignement Supérieur. 2018. Available online: https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/2018_06_cameroun_curie_es_cle0b7d9f.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2024).
- Fondzenyuy, S.K.; Moh, M.D.; Tezong, S.L.F.; Usami, D.S.; Persia, L. Evaluating Speeding Safety Performance Indicators in an Urban Area of a LMIC: A Case Study of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Preprints 2024, 2024021703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aghaabbasi, M.; Moeinaddini, M.; Asadi-Shekari, Z.; Shah, M.Z. The equitable use concept in sidewalk design. Cities 2019, 88, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montella, A.; Guida, C.; Mosca, J.; Lee, J.; Abdel-Aty, M. Systemic approach to improve safety of urban unsignalized intersections: Development and validation of a Safety Index. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 141, 105523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Austin City Council. City of Austin Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. 2018. Available online: https://www.austintexas.gov/department/pedestrian-safety-action-plan (accessed on 3 January 2024).
- Connecticut Department of Transportation. Pedestrian Safety Strategy. 2021. Available online: https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/DOT/PLNG_PLANS/Pedestrian-Safety-Strategy-webpage/Webpage/Reports-Brochures-etc/Comprehensive-Pedestrian-Safety-Strategy---JanFeb-2021.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
- Texas Department of Transportation. Pedestrian Safety Strategies. 2017. Available online: https://www.texasshsp.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Pedestrian-Safety-Strategies-and-Countermeasures.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
- United Nations Environment Programme. Share the Road: Design Guidelines for Non Motorised Transport in Africa. 2019. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/toolkits-manuals-and-guides/share-road-design-guidelines-non-motorized-transport-africa (accessed on 3 January 2024).
- UN Habitat. Streets for Walking & Cycling. 2018. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2020/06/streets-for-walking-and-cycling.pdf (accessed on 3 January 2024).
- Alfonsi, R.; Persia, L.; Antonino, T.; Shingo, D. Advancements in road safety management analysis. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 2064–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
D b | Indicators a | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | |
1 | 7 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 11 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
2 | 0 | 9 | 1 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 2 |
3 | 10 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 13 | 2 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6 |
Ci | 37 | 39 | 17 | 28 | 32 | 38 | 32 | 22 | 32 | 15 | 39 | 9 | 23 | 31 | 24 | 18 | 34 | 5 | 31 | 7 | 17 | 15 | 25 | 27 |
Indicator Evaluation Description | Illustration |
---|---|
(1) Slower traffic speed (speed) S = Average vehicle speed in street (km/h) | 50 km/h average speed SI1 = 1 |
(2) Buffer and barriers SI2 = (CI + FI)/2 CI = CL/N1 CL = Standard curb length (m) N1 = Length of curb that street needs (m) FI = C/N2 C = Area of furnishing zone adjacent to the curb (m2) W = Width of furnishing zone adjacent to the curb (m) If W varies in different parts of street Wi = Width of furnishing zone adjacent to the curb in section i (m) /(length of street (both sides)—length of intersections) i = 1, 2, 3, …, k (different parts of street with various widths of the furnishing zone) FICi = Ci/Ai Ci = Area of furnishing zone adjacent to the curb in section i (m2) Li = Length of street in section i (m) | CL = 1367 m N1 = 1367 m CI = 1 W1 = 5.5 W2 = 1.3 C1 = 280 × 5.5 = 1540 m2 C2 = 1087 × 1.3 = 1413.1 m2 A1 = 280 × 5.5 = 1540 m2 A2 = 1087 × 1.8 = 1956.6 m2 FIC1 = 1540/1540 = 1 FIC2 = 1413.1/1956.6 = 0.72 L1 = 280 L2 = 1087 FI = (1 × 280 + 0.72 × 1087)/1367 = 0.78 SI2 = (1 + 0.78)/2 = 0.89 |
(3) Fewer traffic lane (number of travel lanes) | Number of lanes = 2 SI3 = 1 |
(4) Shorter crossing distance (curb extension) | There is no on street parking and there is sidewalk SI4 = 1 |
(5) Shorter crossing distance (mid-block crossing) Pci = ci/ni i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different sections of street between intersections that are more than 120 m) ci = Number of standard mid-block crossing in section i ni = Length of street in section i/120 | c1 = 1 c2 = 1 n1 = 256/120 = 2.13 n2 = 437/120 = 3.½ c1 = 1/2.13 = 0.47 P c2 = 1/3.6 = 0.28 P1 = 0.47 P2 = 0.28 SI5 = (0.47 + 0.28)/2 = 0.375 |
(6) Landscape and tree SI6 = (P1 + P2)/2 P1 = F/N F = Length of street that has vertical clearance standard condition N = Length of street (both sides)-total length of intersections and their considered standard limitations (m) P2 = NI/I NI = Number of intersections with second standard condition I = Number of total intersections | F = 1242.20 N = 1325.20 P1 = 1242.20/1325.20 = 0.94 NI = 0 I = 3 P2 = 0/3 = 0 SI6 = (0.94 + 0)/2 = 0.47 |
(7) Footpath pavement SI7 = C/N C = Area of standard pavement (m2) Li = length of intersections L = length of street (both sides) W = Width of footpath (m) If W varies in different parts of street Wi = Width of footpath in section i /(length of street (both sides)—length of intersections) i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different parts of street with various width of the footpath) PCi = Ci/Ni Ci = Area of standard pavement in section i (m2) Li = Length of street in section i (m) | W = 1.5 C = (1367 × 1.5) -(12 × 1.5×2) = 2014.5 m2 N = 1367 × 1.80 = 2460.6 SI7 = 2014.5/2460.6 = 0.82 |
(8) Marking (crosswalk) P = C/N C = Number of standard crosswalk markings N = Number of crosswalks that street needs (mid-block and cross walk at intersections) | C = 25 N = 31 P = 25/31 = 0.81 SI8 = 0.81 |
(9) Physical pedestrian refuge and median P = C/N C = Number of standard crosswalk markings N = Number of crosswalks that street needs (mid-block and cross walk at intersections) | C = 1 N = 4 P = 1/4 = 0.25 SI9 = 0.25 |
(10) Splitter island SI10 = C/N C = Number of standard splitter island N = Total splitter island that street has SI10 = 1 if there is no splitter island | C = 12 N = 12 SI10 = 1 |
(11) Sidewalk on both sides SI11 = (a + m)/2 P1 = l1/N1 l1 = Length of sidewalk in one side (m) N1 = Length of street—length of intersections in one side (m) P2 = l2/N2 l2 = Length of sidewalk in opposite side (m) N2 = Length of street—length of intersections in other side (m) | l1 = 250 + 430 = 680 N1 = 680 P1 = 680/680 = 1 a = 1 l2 = 256 + 431 = 687 N2 = 687 P2 = 687/687 = 1m = 1 SI11 = (1 + 1)/2 = 1 |
(12) Advance stop bar P = C/N C = Number of standard advance stop bars N = Total advance stop bars that street needs | C = 26 N = 32 P = 26/32 = 0.81 SI12 = 0.81 |
(13) Driveway SI13 = C/N C = Number of standard driveways N = Total driveways that street has SI13 = 1 if there is no driveway | There is no driveway SI13 = 1 |
(14) Lighting P = C/N LSL = Length of street with pedestrian lighting TLI = total length of intersections D= Distance between light poles (m) N = (length of street (both sides)—intersections length) (m) If D varies in different parts of street i = 1, 2, 3, ... k (different parts of street with various distances between light poles) Ni = length of street in section i (m) | C = 0 N = 680 + 687 = 1367 P = 0/1367 = 0 SI14 = 0 |
(15) Signing SI15 = C/N C = Total crossing facilities that have signs N = Total crossing facilities that street needs | C = 25 N = 31 P = 25/31 = 0.81 SI15 = 0.81 |
(16) Buffer and barriers (bollard) P = C/N C = Number of standard bollards rows N = (total crosswalks + total median crosswalk sections that street needs) ×2 | C = 0 N = (31 + 4) × 2 = 70 P = 0/70 = 0 SI16 = 0 |
(17) Running slope (in the longitudinal direction of the street) SI17 = C/N C = Area of sidewalk with the standard slope (m2) L = length of street (both sides) LI = length of intersections W = Width of the sidewalk (m) If W varies at different parts of street: Wi = Width of sidewalk (m) in section i i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different parts of street with various width of the sidewalk) DICi = Ci/Ni Ci = Area of the sidewalk with the standard slope in section i (m2) Li = Length of street in section i (m) | W = 1.5 C = (1367 × 1.5)−(12 × 1.5 × 2) = 2014.5 m2 N = 1367 × 1.80 = 2460.6 SI17 = 2014.5/2460.6 = 0.82 |
(18) Lift SI18 = C/N C = Number of standard lifts N = Number of lifts that street needs | C = 0 N = 2 SI18 = 0/2 = 0 |
(19) Curb ramp P = C/N C = Number of standard curb ramps N = Total number of curb ramps the street needs | C = 58 N = 70 P = 58/70 = 0.83 SI19 = 0.83 |
(20) Tactile pavement (guiding tile) P = C/N C = Length of standard guiding tactile pavement (m) N = Length of guiding tactile pavement that street needs (m) | C = 0 N = 1367 P = 0/1367 = 0 SI20 = 0 |
(21) Warning tile P = C/N C = Number of standard warning tactile pavement rows N = Number of warning tactile pavement rows that street needs | C = 0 N = 1367 P = 0/1367 = 0 SI20 = 0 |
(22) Ramp P = C/N C = Number of standard ramps N = Number of ramps that street needs | C = 6 N = 6 P = 6/6 = 1 SI22 = 1 |
(23) Grade SI23 = C/N C = Area of sidewalk with the standard grade (m2) L = length of street (both sides) LI = length of intersections W = Width of the sidewalk (m) If W varies at different parts of street: Wi = Width of sidewalk (m) in section i i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different parts of street with various width of the sidewalk) DICi = Ci/Ni Ci = Area of the sidewalk with the standard slope in section i (m2) Li = Length of street in section i (m) | W = 1.5 C = (1367 × 1.5)−(12 × 1.5×2) = 2014.5 m2 N = 1367 × 1.80 = 2460.6 SI23 = 2014.5/2460.6 = 0.82 |
(24) Signal SI24 = (SPI +CPI+WPI+API)/4 SP = Signals with first, second and third standards N = Total number of signals that street needs C = Signals with fourth condition W = Signals with fifth condition A = Signals with sixth condition SI24 = 0 if there is no signal | SP = 14 N = 32 P1 = 14/32 = 0.44 SPI = 0.44 C = 14 P2 = 14/32 = 0.44 CPI = 0.44 W = 14 P3 = 14/32 = 0.44 WPI = 0.44 A = 14 P4 = 14/32 = 0.44 API = 0.44 SI24 = (0.44 + 0.44 + 0.44 + 0.44)/4 = 0.44 |
PSI Rating (PSI%) | Value Range | Interpretation |
---|---|---|
A | 80–100 | Highest quality (very pleasant), many important pedestrian safety facilities present |
B | 60–79 | High quality (acceptable), some important pedestrian safety facilities present |
C | 40–59 | Average quality (rarely acceptable), pedestrian safety facilities present but room for improvement |
D | 20–39 | Low quality (uncomfortable), minimal pedestrian safety facilities |
E | 0–19 | Lowest quality (unpleasant), no pedestrian safety facilities |
ID | Variable | General Weight Factor Y1 | School Area Weight Factor Y2 |
---|---|---|---|
V1 | Permeable fronts | 0.08 | 0.06 |
V2 | Sidewalk dimensions | 0.18 | 0.2 |
V3 | Pavement conditions | 0.18 | 0.18 |
V4 | Seating infrastructure | 0.09 | 0.08 |
V5 | Street lighting | 0.09 | 0.06 |
V6 | Obstacles | 0.05 | 0.05 |
V7 | Crossing accessibility | 0.14 | 0.2 |
V8 | Improper crossing | 0.05 | 0.05 |
V9 | Trees | 0.14 | 0.12 |
Indicator Evaluation Description | Illustration (R1) |
---|---|
(1) (Permeable fronts NP_G is the number of activities with fair or good permeable front. NA is the number of activities. NB_G is the number of activities with fair or good permeable front. NA is the number of bus stops. | There is no bus stop P = 1/5 = 0.2 V1 = P = 0.2 |
(2) Sidewalk Dimensions W = Average width of a street If W varies at different parts of street: Wi = Width of sidewalk (m) in section i i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different parts of street with various width of the sidewalk) | W = 1.5 m |
(3) Pavement Conditions SI7 = the seventh safety index for pedestrian safety index SI20 = the twentieth safety index for pedestrian safety index SI21 = the twenty-first safety index for pedestrian safety index c7, c20, c21 are the respective coefficients of SI7, SI20, SI21 | SI7 = 0.8 SI20 = 0 SI21 = 0 |
(4) Seating Infrastructure NS_G is the number of seating infrastructure which are in fair or good condition. NS is the number of seating infrastructure that street need. | There is no seating infrastructure V4 = 0 |
(5) Street Lighting V5 = SI14 SI14 fourteenth safety index for pedestrian safety index | SI14 = 0.6 V5 = SI14 = 0.6 |
(6) Obstacle V6 = C/N C = Area of sidewalk street without obstacles (m2) Li = length of intersections L = length of street (both sides) W = Width of footpath (m) If W varies in different parts of street Wi = Width of footpath in section i /(length of street (both sides)—length of intersections) i = 1, 2, 3, ..., k (different parts of street with various width of the footpath) PCi = Ci/Ni Ci = Area of sidewalk street without obstacles in section i (m2) Li = Length of street in section i (m) | W − 1.5 C = (700 × 1.5) − (25 × 1.5 × 2) = 975 m2 N = 673 × 1.80 = 1211.4 m2 V6 = 975/1211.4 = 0.80 |
(7) Accessible crossing SI8 = the eighth safety index for pedestrian safety index SI9 = the ninth safety index for pedestrian safety index SI12 = the twelfth safety index for pedestrian safety index c8, c9, c12 are the respective coefficients of SI8, SI9, SI12 | SI8 = 0.8 SI9 = 0 SI12 = 0 |
(8) Improper crossings NPC is the number of people crossing using the pedestrian crossing during a given period. N is the number of people crossing the street during given period | There is no crossing section. V8 = 0 |
(9) Trees NT is the number of well-placed trees along the road, meaning trees placed outside the sidewalk or the path of travel of pedestrians along the road. N is number of trees that the road needs. | V9 = 0 |
Start | End | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Zone | Road ID | Name | Latitude; Longitude | Latitude; Longitude | Length | Type; Lane Width (L) | Median Type | Sidewalk Average Width | Pedestrian Crossing |
1st | R1 | Avenue Monseigneur Vogt | 3.862448; 11.520995 | 3.865283; 11.522058 | 350 m | Undivided 1 × 1 (1 lane/way) L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1.5 m | No |
R2 | Avenue de l’Independance 1 | 3.865392; 11.5219 | 3.866437; 11.52064 | 190 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1 m | No | |
R3 | Rue de Narvik | 3.866020; 11.520468 | 3.863182; 11.520002 | 350 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1.5 m | No | |
R4 | Avenue Ahidjo | 3.862918; 11.520542 | 3.866200; 11.517093 | 550 m | Divided 2 × 2 (2 lanes/way) L < 2.75 m | Central hatching | 1.5 m | No | |
R5 | Avenue de l’Independance 2 | 3.867472; 11.517860 | 3.867080; 11.520097 | 350 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1.5 m | Yes | |
R6 | Rue Goker | 3.866222; 11.520272 | 3.864765; 11.518820 | 230 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1.5 m | No | |
R7 | Boulevard du 20 Mai | 3.861663; 11.520118 | 3.865794; 11.515625 | 700 m | Divided 2 × 2 (2 lane/way) L < 2.75 m | Central hatching | 2.5 m | Yes | |
2nd | R8 | Carrefour GP—Carrefour EMIA | 3.862886; 11.494085 | 3.862244; 11.503976 | 1200 m | Divided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Physical median less than 1 m | 2 m | No |
R9 | Rue Elig Effa | 3.864023; 11.496598 | 3.867354; 11.495855 | 1200 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1 m | No | |
R10 | Mini Ferme–Chapelle Elig Effa | 3.867354; 11.495855 | 3.869919; 11.498435 | 400 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1 m | No | |
R11 | Carrefour EMIA–Chateau | 3.862295; 11.504052 | 3.856377; 11.503734 | 750 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1 m; | No | |
R12 | Chateau–Cradat | 3.856377; 11.503734 | 3.852437; 11.498658 | 800 m | Undivided 1 × 1 L < 2.75 m | Centre line | 1 m One side | No |
R7 | R3 | R8 | R4 | R6 | R10 | R2 | R11 | R5 | R1 | R9 | R12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SI1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
SI2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
SI4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI5 | 0.92 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI7 | 0.99 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.72 | 0.8 | 0.28 | 0.56 | 0.58 | 0.82 | 0.8 | 0.28 | 0.16 |
SI8 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.14 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI9 | 0 | 0 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI11 | 0.99 | 0.96 | 0.96 | 0.87 | 0.95 | 0.75 | 1 | 0.89 | 0.98 | 0.89 | 0.25 | 0.29 |
SI12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI13 | 1 | 1 | 0.67 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
SI14 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.29 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.15 | 0.3 |
SI15 | 0.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI16 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI17 | 1 | 0.84 | 0.39 | 0.24 | 0 | 0.56 | 0 | 0.21 | 0 | 0 | 0.56 | 0.08 |
SI18 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI19 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI20 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI22 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
SI23 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.39 | 0.21 | 0 | 0.56 | 0 | 0.21 | 0 | 0 | 0.56 | 0.08 |
SI24 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PSI | 241.6 | 210.6 | 185.53 | 165.7 | 158.3 | 152.6 | 142.6 | 139.7 | 137.8 | 133.1 | 133.1 | 84.5 |
PSI% | 40.5 | 35.3 | 30.6 | 27.8 | 26.5 | 25.6 | 23.9 | 23.4 | 23.1 | 22.3 | 22.3 | 14.2 |
Grade | C | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | E |
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
R7 | R5 | R3 | R4 | R8 | R6 | R1 | R11 | R10 | R9 | R2 | R12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V1 | 0.77 | 0.63 | 0.83 | 0.94 | 0.32 | 0.77 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.087 | 0.2 | 0.6 |
V2 | 1 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.2 |
V3 | 0.56 | 0.47 | 0.49 | 0.41 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.46 | 0.33 | 0.16 | 0.16 | 0.32 | 0.091 |
V4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
V5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.45 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.29 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.29 | 0.3 |
V6 | 0.99 | 0.82 | 0.86 | 0.72 | 0.6 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.57 | 0.28 | 0.28 | 0.56 | 0.16 |
V7 | 0.17 | 0.048 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
V8 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
V9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0,1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
GWI | 0.5056 | 0.37 | 0.3605 | 0.347 | 0.346 | 0.345 | 0.301 | 0.261 | 0.155 | 0.137 | 0.199 | 0.118 |
GWI% | 50.56 | 36.9 | 36.05 | 34.7 | 34.6 | 34.5 | 30.1 | 26.1 | 15.5 | 13.7 | 19.9 | 11.8 |
Grade | C | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | E | E | E | E |
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
R7 | R5 | R3 | R4 | R8 | R6 | R1 | R11 | R10 | R9 | R2 | R12 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GWI | 0.5056 | 0.369 | 0.3605 | 0.347 | 0.346 | 0.345 | 0.301 | 0.261 | 0.155 | 0.137 | 0.199 | 0.118 |
GWI% | 50.56 | 36.9 | 36.05 | 34.7 | 34.6 | 34.5 | 30.1 | 26.1 | 15.5 | 13.7 | 19.9 | 11.8 |
Grade | C | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | E | E | E | E |
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
PSI | 241.6 | 137.8 | 210.6 | 165.7 | 182.53 | 158.3 | 133.1 | 139.7 | 152.6 | 133.1 | 142.6 | 84.5 |
PSI% | 40.5 | 23.1 | 35.3 | 27.8 | 30.6 | 26.5 | 22.3 | 23.4 | 25.6 | 22.3 | 23.9 | 14.2 |
Grade | C | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | D | E |
Rank | 1 | 9 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 12 |
Ps | T | p-Value | |
---|---|---|---|
GWI ranking vs. PSI ranking | 0.69 | 3.015 | <0.01 |
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. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Feudjio, S.L.T.; Tchaheu, D.T.; Fondzenyuy, S.K.; Jackai, I.N., II; Usami, D.S.; Persia, L. Investigating and Improving Pedestrian Safety in an Urban Environment of a Low- or Middle-Income Country: A Case Study of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Future Transp. 2024, 4, 548-578. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4020026
Feudjio SLT, Tchaheu DT, Fondzenyuy SK, Jackai IN II, Usami DS, Persia L. Investigating and Improving Pedestrian Safety in an Urban Environment of a Low- or Middle-Income Country: A Case Study of Yaoundé, Cameroon. Future Transportation. 2024; 4(2):548-578. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4020026
Chicago/Turabian StyleFeudjio, Steffel Ludivin Tezong, Dimitri Tchaheu Tchaheu, Stephen Kome Fondzenyuy, Isaac Ndumbe Jackai, II, Davide Shingo Usami, and Luca Persia. 2024. "Investigating and Improving Pedestrian Safety in an Urban Environment of a Low- or Middle-Income Country: A Case Study of Yaoundé, Cameroon" Future Transportation 4, no. 2: 548-578. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4020026