# Pedestrians Crossing and Walking Speeds Analysis in Urban Areas under the Influence of Rain and Personality Characteristics

Authors: Iraj Bargegol; Vahid Najafi Moghaddam Gilani; Seyed Mohsen Hosseinian; Mohammad Habibzadeh
Journal: Mathematical Problems in Engineering
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Pedestrians’ behavior plays an important role in designing pedestrian facilities, especially in urban areas. One of these behavioral characteristics is their moving speed on sidewalks, pedestrian streets, crosswalks at signalized intersections, and midblock crosswalks. The moving speed is strongly affected by personality traits such as age, weight, gender as well as environmental and geometric conditions. In this regard, the moving speed of 14,490 pedestrians was measured in urban area pedestrian-related facilities, including signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian street in Rasht city, Iran. Then, using thet-test, the effect of gender characteristics, rainfall, and umbrella carrying on pedestrian moving speed was investigated. The results showed that with a 95% confidence level, the moving speed difference between male and female pedestrians was statistically significant for all the age and weight groups, except for the age group of adolescents. Also, hijab cover affects the moving speed of pedestrians, so that females with the hijab cover meet the lowest moving speed values compared with those with ordinary dress type (i.e., without hijab). However, for elderly females, weight and age are more effective parameters than the dress type. In other words, as the age and weight increase, the moving speed of females would reduce.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Pedestrian facilities, including signalized intersections and midblock crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian streets, are considered crowd facilities with direct and indirect impacts on traffic mobility and safety [1]. Hence, one of the most important issues discussed in pedestrian facilities and modeling is the recognition of their behaviors in different situations and how to guide their routes towards appropriate destinations while reducing conflicts. Therefore, prior to pedestrian facilities design, various pedestrian behavioral parameters should be examined, such as moving speed (referred to as moving speed in the current study), density, flow rate, mode of movement, and capacity of the corresponding area [2].Pedestrian walking and crossing speed are the most important and significant variables among the other behavioral parameters which would affect the engineering design of the roadway system and also are under the influence of rainy weather and personal characteristics, such as age, weight, and gender impacts [3, 4]. It is even possible that carrying kinds of stuff similar to umbrella or bag and speaking with cell phone reduce the pedestrian speed values. The number of individuals in a group [5], location of the crosswalk [6, 7], crossing section length [8, 9], midblock crosswalk [10], flow rate of passengers [11], vehicle presence during the red time of traffic signal [12], distance from the city’s business district [13], and pedestrian average waiting time [14] are other affecting factors on pedestrian moving speed. In other words, speed is intensely influenced by various parameters that can have different values in each country. Culture, food type, people attitude, and even clothing type, especially female dress, can affect pedestrian speed, and their effects vary depending on each country.Therefore, if studies are conducted on pedestrian behavior in different geographic locations, pedestrian facilities design would be better suited towards the needs of that specific area. For example, in a country like Iran, the hijab is one of the common dress types for females, and this is a parameter for consideration in multiple other countries as well. Despite this, in most cities in Iran, designs are accomplished according to the results and recommendations from conducted studies in other countries or based on the Highway Capacity Manual standards [15]. It is suggested that the speed value in various pedestrian facilities is compared with each other in different countries.To compare the pedestrian speed results and investigate the lack of studies, some related studies have been presented. Pedestrians’ moving speed has been a contributing safety concern in traffic studies, and a large number of researchers have conducted studies on this topic. Moore estimated the crossing speed of pedestrians in the proximity of vehicles and elsewhere as 1.52 and 1.22 m/s, respectively [16]. By investigating the relationships among the pedestrian speed, age, and gender, Wilson and Grayson concluded that the average walking speed of males and females is about 1.32 and 1.27 m/s, respectively [17]. Griffiths et al. estimated the crossing speed through the signalized intersections as 1.72, 1.66, and 1.47 m/s for young, middle-aged, and elderly individuals, respectively [18]. By studying the pedestrian crossing speed at a signalized intersection of Bangkok, Tanaboriboon and Guyano found the crossing speed of males and females as 1.31 and 1.23 m/s, respectively [19].O’Flaherty and Bell, in a study, suggested the crossing speed within the range of 1.2–1.25 m/s for intersections together with the movement of different age groups. Also, they reported an average crossing speed of 1.6 m/s in noncrowded conditions [20]. Tarawneh investigated the speed of 3,500 pedestrians at 27 intersections in a large area in Jordan. According to their study, the average speed and fifteenth percentile of the pedestrians were reported to be 1.34 and 1.11 m/s, respectively. Furthermore, they stated that the age, gender, group size, and street width significantly affect the pedestrian speed and male pedestrians considerably cross the intersections faster than females [21]. By collecting the crossing speed data of 1,947 pedestrians at 11 intersections in US, Gates et al. [22] illustrated that the average speed of pedestrians under 65 years of age is 0.3 m/s higher than those over 65 and there is not any difference between the crossing speed of the males and females. By analyzing the crossing speed of 1,040 pedestrians through the unsignalized intersections in Beijing, Shi et al. found that the crossing speed of male pedestrians is 0.1 m/s higher that of female counterparts [23].The US transportation engineering institute reported a speed of 1.1 to 1.2 m/s for pedestrians passing through the intersections [24]. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCDs) suggested a crossing speed of 1.2 m/s for the pedestrians crossing the intersections [25, 26]. The crossing speed of pedestrians, according to the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), is based on the proportion of elderly pedestrians among all users. For the elderly pedestrian ratio of less than 20%, the speed values of 1.2, 1.34, and 1.34 m/s are recommended by 2000 [27], 2010 [28], and 2016 [15] versions, respectively. For a higher ratio of elderly pedestrians, all of the abovementioned HCM versions recommended the speed value of 1 m/s for consideration. It is noteworthy that Ana Trpkovic et al. achieved lower values than HCM for elderly pedestrians [29].Given that a brief explanation of pedestrian effects on roadway system, along with the above findings from the literature, the need to further examine pedestrian moving speed (i.e., walking speed on sidewalks and pedestrian streets and crossing speed at signalized intersections and midblock crosswalks) is clearly understood. Referring to the current study, one can determine the effectiveness of pedestrian gender with certain weight and age, type of dress, rainfall, and umbrella carrying, on pedestrian facilities design. To this end, the moving speed of pedestrians was investigated.


## 2. Methodology and Materials

### 2.1. Study Area

The current study is carried out in Rasht city, the capital of Guilan province, located in the north of Iran. According to the official census in 2016, its population was reported as 679,995 people and a population density of 4,340 per square kilometer [30]. Also, Rasht city has the highest amount of rainfall in Iran, and hereby it is known as the city of rain [31]. To investigate the pedestrian behavior, crosswalks at two busy signalized intersections, two midblock crosswalks, two sidewalk areas, and one pedestrian street facilities in downtown, the most crowded area of the city, was selected. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the study area map, and Figure 2 presents a few pictures of the study area. As it is shown in Figure 2, the selected places for analyzing pedestrian speed have been located in streets with high traffic congestion. There are various reasons for choosing these places for this study, such as (1) the overcrowded of pedestrians, (2) the center of the pedestrian gathering, (3) the performance similarity of these places to other places of Rasht city, and (4) the connection place of trips with different purposes. Therefore, these places represent other similar facilities in Rasht city. The other significant point is that all the intersections and sidewalks of Rasht city include similar approximate characteristics and base geometry design. Also, there is only one pedestrian street in this city.Figure 1
Study area map.Figure 2
Pictures of the study area.


### 2.2. Data Collection

Using the recorded video footages captured by CCTV traffic cameras at designated locations within the study area, the moving speed of 14,490 pedestrians, separated by gender, weight, age, female dress types, weather conditions, and umbrella carrying were estimated and analyzed. Data were collected in Spring 2017 during peak pedestrian activities on Wednesdays and Thursdays for a total of 10.5 hours of recorded video. In order to determine the number of pedestrians and their attributes, such as moving speed at each facility, the research team spent 6 months on reviewing the recorded video footages. The collected pedestrian data are summarized in Table1. Among a total number of pedestrians, 12,559 individuals were observed in normal and 1,931 individuals in rainy weather conditions from which 7,146 individuals were on sidewalks, 3,064 pedestrians were on the pedestrian street, 641 pedestrians were at midblock crosswalks, and 3,639 individuals were at signalized intersections crosswalks.Table 1
Number of pedestrians at different locations and weather conditions.
Facility typeStreet nameNumber of samplesRainy weatherNormal weatherSidewalkSadi3674,038SidewalkBisotoon1582,583Pedestrian streetAlam-Al hoda7122,352Midblock crosswalkLakani57277Midblock crosswalkShariati72235Signalized intersectionGolsar2481,690Signalized intersectionMichael3171,384Since the gathering of pedestrian data in a high volume is hard, the personality data collection of pedestrians was performed according to their apparent characteristics and their compliance with standard and segregation of the World Health Organization (WHO) [32], as illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 3 for age and weight, respectively. To gather female’s characteristics, they were also divided into two groups of either with hijab or casual dresses.Table 2
Age groups classification [32].
Age rangeGroup nameLess than 18 years oldAdolescent18–44 years oldYoung45–65 years oldMiddle-agedOver 65 years oldElderlyFigure 3
Individuals classification based on the weight: (a) thin, (b) normal, and (c) fat [32].
(a)(b)(c)


### 2.3. Statistical Analysis

After performing the data collection and processing, the moving speed of all pedestrians was analyzed by employing the independent samplet-test statistical method. It should be noted that before the t-test, the distribution of the speed data for male and female pedestrians was evaluated by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test according to Table 3, and it was found that speeds follow a normal distribution.Table 3
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results.
SpeedMost extreme differencesK-S statisticAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)AbsolutePositiveNegativeMale0.2420.242−0.1940.2420.553Female0.2640.264−0.1950.7940.559In thet-test, the distribution of t is a function of the degrees of freedom, and it approaches the natural distribution as degrees of freedom increase. Also, the dispersion increases with the reduction in the degrees of freedom. Furthermore, the degrees of freedom themselves are a function of the selective sample size. A larger number of samples is more appropriate. This test compares the mean and standard deviation of two samples to determine if there is a significant difference between them [13]. To this end, the value of t should be estimated using (1). Then, the calculated t should be compared with the t distribution. For this purpose, a degree of freedom is required, which can be obtained according to (2).(1)t=x¯1−x¯2S12/n1+S22/n2,(2)df=n1+n2−2.In the above formulas,x¯1 and x¯2 denote the average and S1 and S2 are the standard deviation of samples 1 and 2, respectively. In addition, n1 and n2 show sample sizes, and df is the degree of freedom. Based on the t number, with respect to the occurrence probability of the first type error (α = 0.05) and the calculated degree of freedom, the result is interpreted. If the P value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected; in other words, it means that there is a significant difference between the mean of the samples [13]. The assumptions corresponding to the above test are given as follows:(3)H0:m1=m2,H1:m1≠m2.


## 2.1. Study Area

The current study is carried out in Rasht city, the capital of Guilan province, located in the north of Iran. According to the official census in 2016, its population was reported as 679,995 people and a population density of 4,340 per square kilometer [30]. Also, Rasht city has the highest amount of rainfall in Iran, and hereby it is known as the city of rain [31]. To investigate the pedestrian behavior, crosswalks at two busy signalized intersections, two midblock crosswalks, two sidewalk areas, and one pedestrian street facilities in downtown, the most crowded area of the city, was selected. Figure 1 provides an illustration of the study area map, and Figure 2 presents a few pictures of the study area. As it is shown in Figure 2, the selected places for analyzing pedestrian speed have been located in streets with high traffic congestion. There are various reasons for choosing these places for this study, such as (1) the overcrowded of pedestrians, (2) the center of the pedestrian gathering, (3) the performance similarity of these places to other places of Rasht city, and (4) the connection place of trips with different purposes. Therefore, these places represent other similar facilities in Rasht city. The other significant point is that all the intersections and sidewalks of Rasht city include similar approximate characteristics and base geometry design. Also, there is only one pedestrian street in this city.Figure 1
Study area map.Figure 2
Pictures of the study area.


## 2.2. Data Collection

Using the recorded video footages captured by CCTV traffic cameras at designated locations within the study area, the moving speed of 14,490 pedestrians, separated by gender, weight, age, female dress types, weather conditions, and umbrella carrying were estimated and analyzed. Data were collected in Spring 2017 during peak pedestrian activities on Wednesdays and Thursdays for a total of 10.5 hours of recorded video. In order to determine the number of pedestrians and their attributes, such as moving speed at each facility, the research team spent 6 months on reviewing the recorded video footages. The collected pedestrian data are summarized in Table1. Among a total number of pedestrians, 12,559 individuals were observed in normal and 1,931 individuals in rainy weather conditions from which 7,146 individuals were on sidewalks, 3,064 pedestrians were on the pedestrian street, 641 pedestrians were at midblock crosswalks, and 3,639 individuals were at signalized intersections crosswalks.Table 1
Number of pedestrians at different locations and weather conditions.
Facility typeStreet nameNumber of samplesRainy weatherNormal weatherSidewalkSadi3674,038SidewalkBisotoon1582,583Pedestrian streetAlam-Al hoda7122,352Midblock crosswalkLakani57277Midblock crosswalkShariati72235Signalized intersectionGolsar2481,690Signalized intersectionMichael3171,384Since the gathering of pedestrian data in a high volume is hard, the personality data collection of pedestrians was performed according to their apparent characteristics and their compliance with standard and segregation of the World Health Organization (WHO) [32], as illustrated in Table 2 and Figure 3 for age and weight, respectively. To gather female’s characteristics, they were also divided into two groups of either with hijab or casual dresses.Table 2
Age groups classification [32].
Age rangeGroup nameLess than 18 years oldAdolescent18–44 years oldYoung45–65 years oldMiddle-agedOver 65 years oldElderlyFigure 3
Individuals classification based on the weight: (a) thin, (b) normal, and (c) fat [32].
(a)(b)(c)


## 2.3. Statistical Analysis

After performing the data collection and processing, the moving speed of all pedestrians was analyzed by employing the independent samplet-test statistical method. It should be noted that before the t-test, the distribution of the speed data for male and female pedestrians was evaluated by the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test according to Table 3, and it was found that speeds follow a normal distribution.Table 3
Kolmogorov–Smirnov test results.
SpeedMost extreme differencesK-S statisticAsymp. Sig. (2-tailed)AbsolutePositiveNegativeMale0.2420.242−0.1940.2420.553Female0.2640.264−0.1950.7940.559In thet-test, the distribution of t is a function of the degrees of freedom, and it approaches the natural distribution as degrees of freedom increase. Also, the dispersion increases with the reduction in the degrees of freedom. Furthermore, the degrees of freedom themselves are a function of the selective sample size. A larger number of samples is more appropriate. This test compares the mean and standard deviation of two samples to determine if there is a significant difference between them [13]. To this end, the value of t should be estimated using (1). Then, the calculated t should be compared with the t distribution. For this purpose, a degree of freedom is required, which can be obtained according to (2).(1)t=x¯1−x¯2S12/n1+S22/n2,(2)df=n1+n2−2.In the above formulas,x¯1 and x¯2 denote the average and S1 and S2 are the standard deviation of samples 1 and 2, respectively. In addition, n1 and n2 show sample sizes, and df is the degree of freedom. Based on the t number, with respect to the occurrence probability of the first type error (α = 0.05) and the calculated degree of freedom, the result is interpreted. If the P value is less than 0.05, then the null hypothesis is rejected; in other words, it means that there is a significant difference between the mean of the samples [13]. The assumptions corresponding to the above test are given as follows:(3)H0:m1=m2,H1:m1≠m2.


## 3. Results

The average moving speed and fifteenth percentile speed over peak hours for different groups of pedestrians and facility types and weather conditions are summarized in Table4.Table 4
Pedestrian moving speed and attributes at different facilities.
Facility typeWeather conditionClassificationNumber of individualsAverage moving speed (m/s)Standard deviationV15 (m/s)Signalized intersections crosswalksNormalMale1,3801.290.1811.03Female with normal dress6191.190.1550.94Female with hijab dress2421.10.1520.84Group movement8331.110.1320.88All pedestrians3,0741.160.1840.97RainfallMale3311.270.1961.06Female2341.210.1681.02All pedestrians5651.240.1871.05Midblock crosswalksNormalMale1921.130.1980.84Female with normal dress1331.040.1290.8Female with hijab dress250.990.1250.74Group movement1620.990.1090.76All pedestrians5121.10.1590.82RainfallMale841.250.1111.05Female451.210.1051.01All pedestrians1291.230.1091.03SidewalksNormalMale3,0811.10.1690.89Female with normal dress2,7751.010.1120.8Female with hijab dress7650.940.1890.73Group movement5340.970.1230.76All pedestrians6,6211.030.1390.81RainfallMale3541.210.1811.06Female1711.120.1391.01All pedestrians5251.150.1411.02Pedestrian streetNormalMale1,1141.040.1550.8Female with normal dress1,0360.940.1920.78Female with hijab dress2020.890.1370.69Group movement6990.880.1450.69All pedestrians2,3520.970.1730.75RainfallMale3421.150.1931.03Female3701.090.1190.91All pedestrians7121.120.1740.99According to the results, pedestrian crossing speed at signalized intersection crosswalks in rainy weather condition was higher than that in normal weather condition. Also, the average and fifteenth percentile of crossing speeds in both normal and rainy weather conditions are higher for males compared with females. Under normal weather, the fifteenth percentile and average crossing speeds of all pedestrians at signalized intersection crosswalks were found as 0.97 and 1.16 m/s, respectively. However, in rainy weather condition, these speed values were 1.05 and 1.24 m/s, respectively.The maximum average and fifteenth percentile speed values at both signalized intersections and midblock crosswalks are associated with males, whereas females with hijab crossed the roadway with lower speeds in both weather conditions. This indicates the influence of dress type on pedestrian moving speed. At midblock crosswalks in normal weather condition, the fifteenth percentile and average crossing speeds are found to be 0.82 and 1.1 m/s, respectively, which are lower compared with the corresponding values in rainy weather.Also, the highest average fifteenth percentile moving speeds on sidewalks and pedestrian street facilities are associated with males. However, hijab-covered females walk at lower speed in all conditions, which further highlights the effect of dress type on pedestrian speed. The maximum average moving and fifteenth percentile speeds on sidewalks and pedestrian street in rainy condition are again associated with males.It is noteworthy that comparing the moving speed of pedestrians on sidewalks and pedestrian street facilities revealed that pedestrians walk at a slower speed in normal weather condition compared with rainy weather. Pedestrian moving speed on the pedestrian street is lower than that on the sidewalks. This is due to the specific design elements of the pedestrian street, which is surrounded by shopping stores and scenic places, and more importantly, the fact that those streets are for pedestrians only, and vehicles are not allowed to be on them. This, in turn, provides more confidence for pedestrians who are not concerned about getting hit by vehicles, so they walk slower compared with being on other facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks. Thus, for designing sidewalks in Rasht and other places with similar pedestrian characteristics, the fifteenth percentile and average moving speeds are suggested to be considered as 0.81 and 1.03 m/s for normal weather condition. Similarly, based on the findings from the current study, it is recommended to consider the fifteenth percentile and average moving speeds as 0.75 and 0.97 m/s for designing pedestrian streets.


## 4. Discussion

After data collection and performing the initial analysis, the effect of gender, age, weight, rainfall, and umbrella carrying is also investigated in this section to gain more insights into attributes affecting pedestrian moving speed.


### 4.1. Effect of Gender on Pedestrian Moving Speed

Tables5–8 provide results of the speed differences between males and females at signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian street facilities. These results have been achieved via the independent sample t-test for normal and rainy weather conditions. Also, in order to eliminate the effect of the disorderly distribution of age and weight, comparisons were made in the same age and weight groups.Table 5
Comparison of speed at signalized intersections in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.491The difference is not significant.FemaleT = 0.207YoungMaleP = 0.002The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.162Middle-agedMaleP = 0.037The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.213ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.199NormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.179The difference is not significant.FemaleT = 0.383YoungMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.262Middle-agedMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.148ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.282FatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.173Middle-agedMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.184ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.152RainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.202N/A: not available.Table 6
Comparison of speed at midblock crosswalks in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.242The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.045T = 0.183The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.025T = 0.153The difference is significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.290The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.243The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.288The difference is significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.319The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.204The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.131The difference is significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.317The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Table 7
Comparison of speed on sidewalks in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.302T = 0.134The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.313The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.323The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.311The difference is significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.114T = 0.175The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.119The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.219The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.137The difference is significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.206The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.032T = 0.102The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.212The difference is significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.141The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Table 8
Comparison of speed on pedestrian street in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.333T = 0.255The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP = 0.041T = 0.122The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.054T = 0.271The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.231The difference is not significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.451T = 0.452The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.264The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 1.155The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.356T = 0.222The difference is not significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.144The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.005T = 0.216The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.763T = 0.211The difference is not significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.341The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Based on the independent samplet-test results, at all three facilities (i.e., crosswalks at signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, and sidewalks) in normal weather condition and in all three weight groups over different ages, moving speed differences between male and female pedestrians were significant with 95% confidence. Therefore, traffic engineers should involve the result difference between male and female pedestrians in all related traffic studies and the safety of pedestrians in urban facilities [33, 34], and also they should apply the pedestrian speed for pedestrian time plan of intersections [35]. In addition, no significant difference in moving speed was observed in the adolescent group with different weights, while this group has the largest population of urban users [36]. In other words, in this age group, males and females cross the pedestrian facilities at nearly equal speeds. There was no significant difference in pedestrian moving speed on the pedestrian street for adolescents and elderly ages within all three weight groups. In these age groups, male and female pedestrians tended to walk at approximately equal speeds on the pedestrian street.


### 4.2. Effect of Dress Type on Pedestrian Moving Speed

In order to compare the moving speed of two female groups (i.e., those with and without hijab), statistical tests were used. To this end, after determining the speed data distribution using the K-S test and ensuring that data are of the normal distribution, the independent samplet-test was employed. Comparisons were first made under normal weather condition ignoring the pedestrian age and weight for each of the facilities. Test results, as provided in Table 9, show that at all four types of pedestrian facilities, females moving speed difference is significant, and their dress type affects their speed.Table 9
Female pedestrian moving speed investigation with respect to dress type and weather conditions, regardless of age and weight.
Facility typeDress typeP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersection crosswalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.216The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressMidblock crosswalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.221The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressSidewalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.104The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressPedestrian streetFemale with normal dressP = 0.027T = 0.351The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressIn order to do further analysis, the influence of dress type in the homologous age and weight groups was examined for all facilities. The results, as presented in Table10, show that the average moving speed of elderly and middle-aged groups with normal weight meet significant differences. There were no significant differences in moving speed of young females with normal and thin weight groups. For elderly females of the fat weight group, the test confidence was continued up to 80%, but the moving speed difference was not significant.Table 10
Investigation of female pedestrian moving speed with respect to dress type in homologous weight and age groups at all facilities.
AgeWeightDress typeP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%AdolescentThinNormalFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressYoungThinNormal dressP = 0.134T = 0.324The difference is not significant.Hijab dressNormalNormal dressP = 0.142T = 0.352The difference is not significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressMiddle-agedThinNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressNormalNormal dressP < 0.001T = 0.121The difference is significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressElderlyThinNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressNormalNormal dressP = 0.042T = 0.671The difference is significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressP = 0.175T = 0.633The difference is not significant.Hijab dressN/A: not available.


### 4.3. Effect of Rainfall on Pedestrian Moving Speed

The independent samplet-test was used to compare pedestrian moving speed in two different weather conditions. Multiple comparisons were made among the pedestrians within the same gender condition. Analysis results are given in Table 11. The results obtained via the independent sample t-test indicated a significant statistical difference for both gender groups and at all four types of pedestrian facilities. This comparison showed that rainfall influences pedestrian moving speed, so male and female pedestrians in normal weather condition had different moving speeds compared with those in rainy weather, and this difference was statistically significant with 95% confidence. However, no significant difference was observed on females moving speed on the pedestrian street facility. In other words, rain would not affect females moving speed on the pedestrian street, and they tend to psychologically have less issue with getting wet under the rain.Table 11
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed in normal and rainy weather conditions.
Facility typeGenderWeather conditionP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersections crosswalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.202The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.291The difference is significant.RainfallMidblock crosswalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.153The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.311The difference is significant.RainfallSidewalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.183The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.243The difference is significant.RainfallPedestrian streetMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.173The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP = 0.145T = 0.422The difference is not significant.Rainfall


### 4.4. Effect of Umbrella Carrying on Pedestrian Moving Speed

In order to compare pedestrian moving speed in rainy weather condition, pedestrians were divided into two groups of people with and without an umbrella. In Table12, results of the pedestrian moving speed differences with and without an umbrella in rainy weather condition for different types of facilities are presented. It was found that carrying an umbrella by female pedestrians at signalized intersections is the only case where it yields significant differences in moving speed compared with those without an umbrella. Under the other study cases, there were no significant differences in pedestrian moving speed with and without carrying an umbrella, which indicates, in general, that the umbrella factor is not effective on pedestrian moving speed in rainy weather condition. On the contrary, in a similar study, the researcher showed that mobile phone talking has significant effects on pedestrian safety [37]. Therefore, the results of umbrella carrying cannot relate to other kinds of portable stuff, and they must be clearly investigated. Even the types of facilities have an effect on results, and the researchers should investigate the above issues at all facilities, such as the corridors of cinemas and shopping centers, evacuation corridors of stadiums, and so on [38].Table 12
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed with and without an umbrella in rainy weather for different gender groups.
Facility typeGenderUmbrella’s availabilityP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersections crosswalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.114The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.276FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.001The difference is significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.452Midblock crosswalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.138The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.619FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.191The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.534SidewalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.261The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.437FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.773The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.467Pedestrian streetMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.555The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.453FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.193The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.301


### 4.5. Comparing the Results

Comparing the fifteenth percentile moving speed of pedestrians found in the current study with other studies with similar scopes, Table13 shows that pedestrian moving speed in Rasht city is lower [8, 13, 15–17, 19–22, 24–29, 39–60]. For example, the pedestrian moving speed value on Rasht’s pedestrian street is lower than that presented in the studies of Fitzpatrick [45] and Henderson [43] to the amount of 100% and 92%, respectively. Comparing the present study with two other studies previously conducted in Rasht city in 2014 [13] and 2017 [8] reveals that pedestrian moving speeds in the current study are found to be lower.Table 13
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed values among different studies.
Studies (ref. No.)Moving speed from current study (m/s)Percentage difference between moving speed values of the current study and those of the literaturePedestrianStreetSidewalkMidblock crosswalkSignalized intersection crosswalk16, 39, 40, 411.22−62.7%−-50.6%−48.8%−25.8%42, 43, 201.6−113.3%−97.5%−95.1%−64.9%441.44−92.0%−77.8%−75.6%−48.5%45, 461.5−100.0%-85.2%−82.9%−54.6%471.3−73.3%−60.5%−58.5%−34.0%17, 20, 481.32−76.0%-63.0%−61.0%−36.1%49, 501.4−86.7%−72.8%−70.7%−44.3%511.37−82.7%−69.1%−67.1%−41.2%19, 52, 531.31−74.7%−61.7%−59.8%−35.1%54, 551.25−66.7%−54.3%−52.4%−28.9%561.08−44.0%−33.3%−31.7%−11.3%571.47−96.0%−81.5%−79.3%−51.5%581−33.3%−23.5%−22.0%−3.1%591.19−58.7%−46.9%-45.1%−22.7%601.45−93.3%−79.0%-76.8%−49.5%611.05−40.0%−29.6%-28.0%−8.2%24, 271.2−60.0%−48.1%-46.3%−23.7%25, 261.21−61.3%−49.4%−47.6%−24.7%15, 21, 281.34−78.7%−65.4%−63.4%−38.1%290.99−32.3%−22.7%−21.2%−2.0%130.83−10.7%−2.5%−1.2%14.4%80.89−18.7%−9.9%−8.5%8.2%


## 4.1. Effect of Gender on Pedestrian Moving Speed

Tables5–8 provide results of the speed differences between males and females at signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian street facilities. These results have been achieved via the independent sample t-test for normal and rainy weather conditions. Also, in order to eliminate the effect of the disorderly distribution of age and weight, comparisons were made in the same age and weight groups.Table 5
Comparison of speed at signalized intersections in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.491The difference is not significant.FemaleT = 0.207YoungMaleP = 0.002The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.162Middle-agedMaleP = 0.037The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.213ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.199NormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.179The difference is not significant.FemaleT = 0.383YoungMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.262Middle-agedMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.148ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.282FatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.173Middle-agedMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.184ElderlyMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.152RainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001The difference is significant.FemaleT = 0.202N/A: not available.Table 6
Comparison of speed at midblock crosswalks in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.242The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.045T = 0.183The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.025T = 0.153The difference is significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.290The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.243The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.288The difference is significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.319The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.204The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.131The difference is significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.317The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Table 7
Comparison of speed on sidewalks in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.302T = 0.134The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.313The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.323The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.311The difference is significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.114T = 0.175The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.119The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 0.219The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.137The difference is significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.206The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.032T = 0.102The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.212The difference is significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.141The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Table 8
Comparison of speed on pedestrian street in the same age and weight.
Weather conditionsWeightAgeGenderP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%NormalThinAdolescentMaleP = 0.333T = 0.255The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP = 0.041T = 0.122The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.054T = 0.271The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP < 0.001T = 0.231The difference is not significant.FemaleNormalAdolescentMaleP = 0.451T = 0.452The difference is not significant.FemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.264The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP < 0.001T = 1.155The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.356T = 0.222The difference is not significant.FemaleFatAdolescentMaleN/AN/AFemaleYoungMaleP < 0.001T = 0.144The difference is significant.FemaleMiddle-agedMaleP = 0.005T = 0.216The difference is significant.FemaleElderlyMaleP = 0.763T = 0.211The difference is not significant.FemaleRainfallN/AN/AMaleP < 0.001T = 0.341The difference is significant.FemaleN/A: not available.Based on the independent samplet-test results, at all three facilities (i.e., crosswalks at signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, and sidewalks) in normal weather condition and in all three weight groups over different ages, moving speed differences between male and female pedestrians were significant with 95% confidence. Therefore, traffic engineers should involve the result difference between male and female pedestrians in all related traffic studies and the safety of pedestrians in urban facilities [33, 34], and also they should apply the pedestrian speed for pedestrian time plan of intersections [35]. In addition, no significant difference in moving speed was observed in the adolescent group with different weights, while this group has the largest population of urban users [36]. In other words, in this age group, males and females cross the pedestrian facilities at nearly equal speeds. There was no significant difference in pedestrian moving speed on the pedestrian street for adolescents and elderly ages within all three weight groups. In these age groups, male and female pedestrians tended to walk at approximately equal speeds on the pedestrian street.


## 4.2. Effect of Dress Type on Pedestrian Moving Speed

In order to compare the moving speed of two female groups (i.e., those with and without hijab), statistical tests were used. To this end, after determining the speed data distribution using the K-S test and ensuring that data are of the normal distribution, the independent samplet-test was employed. Comparisons were first made under normal weather condition ignoring the pedestrian age and weight for each of the facilities. Test results, as provided in Table 9, show that at all four types of pedestrian facilities, females moving speed difference is significant, and their dress type affects their speed.Table 9
Female pedestrian moving speed investigation with respect to dress type and weather conditions, regardless of age and weight.
Facility typeDress typeP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersection crosswalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.216The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressMidblock crosswalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.221The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressSidewalksFemale with normal dressP < 0.001T = 0.104The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressPedestrian streetFemale with normal dressP = 0.027T = 0.351The difference is significant.Female with hijab dressIn order to do further analysis, the influence of dress type in the homologous age and weight groups was examined for all facilities. The results, as presented in Table10, show that the average moving speed of elderly and middle-aged groups with normal weight meet significant differences. There were no significant differences in moving speed of young females with normal and thin weight groups. For elderly females of the fat weight group, the test confidence was continued up to 80%, but the moving speed difference was not significant.Table 10
Investigation of female pedestrian moving speed with respect to dress type in homologous weight and age groups at all facilities.
AgeWeightDress typeP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%AdolescentThinNormalFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressYoungThinNormal dressP = 0.134T = 0.324The difference is not significant.Hijab dressNormalNormal dressP = 0.142T = 0.352The difference is not significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressMiddle-agedThinNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressNormalNormal dressP < 0.001T = 0.121The difference is significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressElderlyThinNormal dressN/AN/AHijab dressNormalNormal dressP = 0.042T = 0.671The difference is significant.Hijab dressFatNormal dressP = 0.175T = 0.633The difference is not significant.Hijab dressN/A: not available.


## 4.3. Effect of Rainfall on Pedestrian Moving Speed

The independent samplet-test was used to compare pedestrian moving speed in two different weather conditions. Multiple comparisons were made among the pedestrians within the same gender condition. Analysis results are given in Table 11. The results obtained via the independent sample t-test indicated a significant statistical difference for both gender groups and at all four types of pedestrian facilities. This comparison showed that rainfall influences pedestrian moving speed, so male and female pedestrians in normal weather condition had different moving speeds compared with those in rainy weather, and this difference was statistically significant with 95% confidence. However, no significant difference was observed on females moving speed on the pedestrian street facility. In other words, rain would not affect females moving speed on the pedestrian street, and they tend to psychologically have less issue with getting wet under the rain.Table 11
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed in normal and rainy weather conditions.
Facility typeGenderWeather conditionP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersections crosswalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.202The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.291The difference is significant.RainfallMidblock crosswalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.153The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.311The difference is significant.RainfallSidewalksMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.183The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.243The difference is significant.RainfallPedestrian streetMaleNormalP < 0.001T = 0.173The difference is significant.RainfallFemaleNormalP = 0.145T = 0.422The difference is not significant.Rainfall


## 4.4. Effect of Umbrella Carrying on Pedestrian Moving Speed

In order to compare pedestrian moving speed in rainy weather condition, pedestrians were divided into two groups of people with and without an umbrella. In Table12, results of the pedestrian moving speed differences with and without an umbrella in rainy weather condition for different types of facilities are presented. It was found that carrying an umbrella by female pedestrians at signalized intersections is the only case where it yields significant differences in moving speed compared with those without an umbrella. Under the other study cases, there were no significant differences in pedestrian moving speed with and without carrying an umbrella, which indicates, in general, that the umbrella factor is not effective on pedestrian moving speed in rainy weather condition. On the contrary, in a similar study, the researcher showed that mobile phone talking has significant effects on pedestrian safety [37]. Therefore, the results of umbrella carrying cannot relate to other kinds of portable stuff, and they must be clearly investigated. Even the types of facilities have an effect on results, and the researchers should investigate the above issues at all facilities, such as the corridors of cinemas and shopping centers, evacuation corridors of stadiums, and so on [38].Table 12
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed with and without an umbrella in rainy weather for different gender groups.
Facility typeGenderUmbrella’s availabilityP value, T valueResults oft-test with the confidence level of 95%Signalized intersections crosswalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.114The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.276FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.001The difference is significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.452Midblock crosswalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.138The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.619FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.191The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.534SidewalksMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.261The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.437FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.773The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.467Pedestrian streetMaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.555The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.453FemaleWith an umbrellaP = 0.193The difference is not significant.Without an umbrellaT = 0.301


## 4.5. Comparing the Results

Comparing the fifteenth percentile moving speed of pedestrians found in the current study with other studies with similar scopes, Table13 shows that pedestrian moving speed in Rasht city is lower [8, 13, 15–17, 19–22, 24–29, 39–60]. For example, the pedestrian moving speed value on Rasht’s pedestrian street is lower than that presented in the studies of Fitzpatrick [45] and Henderson [43] to the amount of 100% and 92%, respectively. Comparing the present study with two other studies previously conducted in Rasht city in 2014 [13] and 2017 [8] reveals that pedestrian moving speeds in the current study are found to be lower.Table 13
Comparison of pedestrian moving speed values among different studies.
Studies (ref. No.)Moving speed from current study (m/s)Percentage difference between moving speed values of the current study and those of the literaturePedestrianStreetSidewalkMidblock crosswalkSignalized intersection crosswalk16, 39, 40, 411.22−62.7%−-50.6%−48.8%−25.8%42, 43, 201.6−113.3%−97.5%−95.1%−64.9%441.44−92.0%−77.8%−75.6%−48.5%45, 461.5−100.0%-85.2%−82.9%−54.6%471.3−73.3%−60.5%−58.5%−34.0%17, 20, 481.32−76.0%-63.0%−61.0%−36.1%49, 501.4−86.7%−72.8%−70.7%−44.3%511.37−82.7%−69.1%−67.1%−41.2%19, 52, 531.31−74.7%−61.7%−59.8%−35.1%54, 551.25−66.7%−54.3%−52.4%−28.9%561.08−44.0%−33.3%−31.7%−11.3%571.47−96.0%−81.5%−79.3%−51.5%581−33.3%−23.5%−22.0%−3.1%591.19−58.7%−46.9%-45.1%−22.7%601.45−93.3%−79.0%-76.8%−49.5%611.05−40.0%−29.6%-28.0%−8.2%24, 271.2−60.0%−48.1%-46.3%−23.7%25, 261.21−61.3%−49.4%−47.6%−24.7%15, 21, 281.34−78.7%−65.4%−63.4%−38.1%290.99−32.3%−22.7%−21.2%−2.0%130.83−10.7%−2.5%−1.2%14.4%80.89−18.7%−9.9%−8.5%8.2%


## 5. Conclusion

In the current study, by investigating 14,490 pedestrian characteristics at seven pedestrian facility locations, the effects of gender with respect to age and weight groups, weather condition, and umbrella carrying were evaluated on pedestrian moving speed. The moving speed term was coined to reflect pedestrians crossing speed on crosswalks and walking speed on sidewalks and pedestrian street facilities. Comparing the speed values found in the current study with findings of others showed that pedestrian moving speed values at all pedestrian facilities in Rasht city are lower. Thus, design characteristics concerning pedestrian facilities are recommended to be calibrated for local conditions. This is especially important when dealing with pedestrian crossing time at signalized intersections and designing the sidewalk’s width. It is also recommended for other municipalities to perform similar types of pedestrian studies to ensure that design factors would eventually enhance the safety of road users. Some of the key results obtained from the current study are summarized as follows:(i)
The maximum fifteenth percentile of pedestrian moving speed in both normal and rainy weather conditions and for all studied pedestrian facilities is related to males, whereas females, and especially those with hijab-covered, walk at lower speeds in all conditions. Therefore, the hijab-covered affects the walking and crossing speed of pedestrians, and it will cause them to be at risk against the vehicle, which is suggested to inform them to have more consciousness when they want to cross the street.(ii)
The pedestrian moving speed values are approximately the same on sidewalks and midblock crosswalks and have smaller numbers compared with those at signalized intersections. Also, the lowest moving speed among all pedestrian facilities in both normal and rainy weather conditions was found on the pedestrian street. Perhaps the reason for this is due to the special design of pedestrian street where higher priority is given to pedestrians and they are located in touristic, recreational, or special-purpose shopping areas.(iii)
During the rainy weather, pedestrians tend to accelerate so that their moving speed on sidewalks and at midblock crosswalks is close to that at signalized intersections.(iv)
Regarding the significant effects of rain on the walking and crossing speed of pedestrians, the traffic engineers should consider this issue and design the pedestrian facilities based on speed result in rain condition, especially in cities that are popular as rain cities.(v)
In normal weather condition, the fifteenth percentile moving speed of pedestrians at signalized intersections, midblock crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian street is reported to be 0.97, 0.82, 0.81, and 0.75 m/s, respectively. The aforementioned moving speed values are found as 1.05, 1.03, 1.02, and 0.99 m/s, respectively, in rainy weather condition.(vi)
For adolescents, gender does not significantly affect pedestrian moving speed on sidewalks. In other words, in this age group, females and males walk at nearly equal speeds.(vii)
With the confidence level of 95% in the middle-aged and elderly age groups with normal weight, female pedestrian moving speed differences for those with or without hijab are statistically significant. This demonstrates that dress type (i.e., hijab) affects pedestrian moving speed.Through this research, it was found that the pedestrian speed is under the influence of various parameters, and measuring all the variations is complex and is suggested that in future studies, the researchers find other effective parameters for the pedestrian moving speed. Moreover, machine learning methods can be incorporated into the proposed approaches [61–63]. Deep learning models can also obtain more accurate results [64, 65]. By understanding users’ perceptions regarding the improvement of facilities, these methods, in conjunction with a survey analysis, can also improve work zone safety [66]. Furthermore, it is suggested to investigate the effect of personality characteristics of the pedestrian in other facilities such as stairs of pedestrian bridges and subways routs.



---

*Source: 7768160-2022-05-14.xml*