Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators

Tools For Evaluating The Quality of Transport Services and Facilities

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 17 April 2015


This chapter describes level-of-service (LOS) rating systems suitable for evaluating the quality of various transport modes from users’ perspective. This helps create a more neutral planning decisions that involve tradeoffs between different transport modes.

 

 

Description

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators are rating systems used to evaluate various transportation modes and impacts. Level of Service (also called Quality of Service or Service Quality) refers to the speed, convenience, comfort and security of transportation facilities and services as experienced by users. Level-Of-Service (LOS) ratings, typically from A (best) to F (worst), are widely used in transport Planning to evaluate problems and potential solutions. Because they are easy to understand (they are similar to the schools grades), Level-Of-Service rating often influence transport planning decisions. Such ratings systems can be used identify problems, establish Performance Indicators and targets, evaluate potential solutions, compare locations, and track trends.

 

Current planning tends to evaluate transportation system performance based primarily on motor vehicle traffic speed and delay (tables 1 and 2). There are generally no LOS ratings for other modes or problems. This tends to favor highway expansion over other types of transportation improvements, contributing to Automobile Dependency.

 

Table 1            Roadway Level-Of-Service (LOS) Ratings (Wikipedia)

LOS

Description

Speed

(mph)

Flow (veh./hour/lane)

Density

(veh./mile)

A

Traffic flows at or above the posted speed limit and all motorists have complete mobility between lanes.

Over 60

Under 700

Under 12

B

Slightly congested, with some impingement of maneuverability. Two motorists might be forced to drive side by side, limiting lane changes.

57-60

700-1,100

12-20

C

Ability to pass or change lanes is not assured. Most experienced drivers are comfortable, and posted speed is maintained, but roads are close to capacity. This is often the target LOS for urban highways.

54-57

1,100-1,550

20-30

D

Typical of an urban highway during commuting hours. Speeds are somewhat reduced, motorists are hemmed in by other cars and trucks.

46-54

1,550-1,850

30-42

E

Flow becomes irregular and speed varies rapidly, but rarely reaches the posted limit. On highways this is consistent with a road over its designed capacity.

30-46

1,850-2,000

42-67

F

Flow is forced; every vehicle moves in lockstep with the vehicle in front of it, with frequent drops in speed to nearly zero mph. A road for which the travel time cannot be predicted.

Under 30

Unstable

67-Maximum

This table summarizes roadway Level of Service (LOS) rating. These only account for motor vehicle traffic speeds and congestion delay. Other impacts and modes are often ignored.

 

 

Table 2            Road and Intersection Level-Of-Service (LOS) (Washington County 2002)

LOS

Freeway

(assuming 70 mph design speed)

Arterial

(assuming typical 40 mph free flow speed)

Signalized Intersections (average controlled delay per vehicle)

Traffic Flow Characteristics

A

Greater than 60 mph Average spacing: 22 car-lengths

Greater than 35 mph

Less than 10 seconds; most vehicles do not stop at all

Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio less than of equal to .60

B

57 to 60 mph Average spacing: 13 car-lengths

28 to 35 mph

10.1 to 20 seconds; more vehicles stop than LOS A

Stable flow with slight delays; reasonably unimpeded Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .61 to .70

C

54 to 57 mph Average spacing: 9 car-lengths

22 to 28 mph

20.1 to 35 seconds; individual cycle failures may begin to appear

Stable flow with delays; less freedom to maneuver Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .71 to .80

D

46 to 54 mph Average spacing: 6 car-lengths

17 to 22 mph

35.1 to 55 seconds; individual cycle failures are noticeable

High Density, but stable flow Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .81 to .90

E

30 to 46 mph Average spacing: 4 car-lengths

13 to 17 mph

55.1 to 80 seconds; individual cycle failures are frequent; poor progression

Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio .91 to 1.00

F

Less than 30 mph Average spacing: Bumper to bumper

Less than 13 mph

More than 80 seconds; not acceptable for most drivers

Forced flow, breakdown conditions Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratio greater than 1.00

>F

Demand exceeds roadway capacity, limiting volume that can be carried and forcing excess demand onto parallel routes and extending the peak period.

Volume/Capacity (V/C) ratios of greater than 1.10

 

Definitions:

Average speed: the total speed of all vehicles divided by the number of vehicles.

Average delay: the total delay experienced by all vehicles divided by the number of vehicles.

Controlled delay: the delay a signal causes a vehicle, from the point the vehicle begins to decelerate until it is back up to speed.

Average spacing: the average distance between vehicles.

Cycle: A complete sequence of signal indications.

Cycle failure: When a vehicle must wait for more than one cycle.

 

 

The following travel flow characteristics (V/C Ratio) are used to determine needs and deficiencies during the planning process:

A – Virtually free flow; completely unimpeded: Volume/Capacity ratio less than of equal to .60.

B – Stable flow with slight delays; reasonably unimpeded: Volume/capacity ratio .61 to .70.

C – Stable flow with delays, less freedom to maneuver: Volume/Capacity ratio .71 to .80.

D – High Density but stable flow: Volume/Capacity ratio .81 to .90.

E – Operating conditions at or near capacity; unstable flow Volume/Capacity ratio.91 to 0.99.

F – Forced flow, breakdown conditions Volume/Capacity ratio greater than 0.99.

>F – Volume/Capacity ratios of greater than 1.10.

 

 

This rating system is used to define transportation problems and prioritize transportation system improvements, resulting in resources being directed at highway expansion. Transportation engineers often produce maps showing roadway links and intersections considered to have excess traffic congestion (Level-of-Service rating D or worse), which is used to prioritize roadway expansion projects. This methodology is criticized as being technically flawed and biased, because it ignores (Cortright 2010; DeRobertis, et al. 2014):

 

 

 

 

 

Some jurisdictions codify this bias toward automobile-oriented improvements with concurrency requirements and development fees, which imposes restrictions and fees on new development that increases local traffic congestion as measured by roadway LOS ratings. This tends to discourage infill development and encourage sprawl (Cortright 2010; CUTR 2006 and 2008). Application of Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service standards supports infill development and Smart Growth by allowing roadway LOS ratings to decline provided that LOS ratings for other modes improve, and by allowing development fees to finance Nonmotorized and Public Transit improvements rather than just roadway expansion.

 

The development and use of Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators is consistent with current trends toward more Comprehensive and balanced transport planning that considers diverse modes and impacts (Cambridge Systematics 2010). Such indicators can help respond to users’ preferences and expand the range of solutions that can be considered in transport planning. For example, travelers may sometimes be willing to accept lower speeds for increased convenience and comfort, and improvements to other modes besides roadway. Multi-Modal LOS Indicators can help identify if a particular planning decision has undesirable indirect effects, such as when road or parking facility expansion degrades walking and cycling conditions. It is particularly important for TDM Evaluation, because it considers a broader range of options and impacts, and reflects factors that influence traveler behavior.

 

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators can be used for travel demand Modeling. An improvement in a mode’s Level-of-Service rating reflects an increase in its speed, convenience and comfort, which, all else being equal, should increase demand for that mode. The rating factors can be quantified to measure changes in service quality.

 

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators can be used to establish Performance Standards and targets. For example, a strategic transportation plan include a target that all walking and cycling facilities should have at least a C Level-of-Service rating, and that the average value of public transit Level-of-Service should increase from D to C within two years, and should reach LOS B within five years. This establishes a framework for identifying problems and prioritizing transportation system improvements.

 

Comprehensive Level-of-Service Indicators are particularly important for improving public transit and walking transport, because their travel conditions are directly affected by public planning decisions, as indicated in Table 3. For example, motorists supply their own parking garages and vehicles and so directly control comfort features such as seating quality, temperature control and refreshment availability (cupholders). In contrast, public transit travelers publicly supplied sidewalks and paths, stops and stations, park-&-ride facilities, and vehicles. It is not generally possible for an individual traveler to purchase improved walking conditions, nicer stops and stations, higher transit service speeds, or a nicer bus or train with additional convenience and comfort features (such as cupholders); improving these facilities and services requires public planning that responds to user needs and preferences. For example, some travelers might shift from driving to public transit if it had better service quality. Comprehensive Level-of-Service Indicators are the mechanism used to identify and evaluate such consumer demands in the planning process.

 

Table 3            Provision of Transportation System Components

Providers

Automobile

Public Transit

Walking & Cycling

Private

Residential

garage

Vehicle

 

Shoes and bikes

 

Public

Roads

Destination parking

Sidewalks and paths

Stops and stations

Park-&-Ride facilities

Vehicle (bus or train)

Sidewalks and paths

Road crossing conditions

Automobile users provide their own garage and vehicles and so have greater direct control over convenience and comfort features. Public transit users depend much more on publicly supplied facilities and services and so are more affected by the methods use to evaluate service quality.

 

 

Multi-modal LOS Indicators can help guide planning decisions to favor efficient modes and trips for transport system Prioritization for a Green Transportation Hierarchy. This essentially reverses priorities of transport planning which relies on roadway Level-of-Service ratings to allocate resources to increase automobile traffic volume and speed, with little consideration of other modes and problems.

 

Green Transportation Hierarchy (TA, 2001)

1.     Pedestrians

2.     Bicycles

3.     Public Transportation

4.     Service and Freight Vehicles

5.     Taxis

6.     Multiple Occupant Vehicles

7.     Single Occupant Vehicles

The Green Transportation Hierarchy favors more efficient (in terms of space, energy and other costs) modes.

 

 

Examples of Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service Standards

This section describes examples of Level-Of-Service standards developed for various modes. The Florida Department of Transportation’s “Quality/Level of Service Handbook” (FDOT, 2009) provides the most comprehensive information on Multi-Modal LOS standards. The Transportation Research Board’s “Highway Capacity Manual” (TRB 2000) provides more information on walking, cycling and automobile transportation LOS ratings (Elias and Parks 2013).  The “Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual” (Kittelson, 2003) provides information on public transportation LOS standards.

 

Non-Motorized (Walking and Cycling) Conditions and Facilities

Table 4 lists factors to consider when evaluating Walking and Cycling Facilities such as sidewalks, paths and trails (together called nonmotorized networks). Several walking and cycling Level-Of-Service rating systems have been developed, some are more complete than others (Gehrke 2012). For example, some focus on walkway conditions and give little consideration to roadway crossings, while others focus on roadway crossing conditions and give little consideration to walkways.

 

Table 4            Nonmotorized Level-Of-Service Rating Factors

Feature

Definition

Indicators

Network continuity

Whether sidewalks and paths exist, and connect throughout an area.

·     Portion of streets with nonmotorized facilities.

·     Length of path per capita.

·     Network connectivity and density (kilometers of sidewalks and paths per square kilometer).

Network quality

Whether sidewalks and paths are properly designed and maintained.

·     Sidewalk and path functional width.

·     Portion of sidewalks and paths that meet current design standards.

·     Portion of sidewalks and paths in good repair.

Road crossing

Safety and speed of road crossings

·     Road crossing widths.

·     Motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds.

·     Average pedestrian crossing time.

·     Quantity and quality of crosswalks, signals and crossing guards.

Traffic protection

Separation of nonmotorized traffic from motorized traffic, particularly high traffic volumes and speeds.

·     Distance between traffic lanes and sidewalks or paths.

·     Presence of physical separators, such as trees and bollards.

·     Speed control.

Congestion and user conflicts

Whether sidewalks and paths are crowded or experience other conflicts.

·     Functional width of sidewalk and paths.

·     Peak-period density (people per square meter)

·     Clearance from hazards, such as street furniture and performers within the right-of-way.

·     Number of reported conflicts among users.

·     Facility management to minimize user conflicts.

Topography

Presence of steep inclines.

·     Portion of sidewalks and paths with steep inclines.

Sense of Security

Perceived threats of accidents, assault, theft or abuse.

·     Reported security incidents.

·     Quality of visibility and lighting.

Wayfinding

Guidance for navigating within the station and to nearby destinations.

·     Availability and quality of signs, maps and visitor information services.

Weather protection

User protected from sun and rain.

·     Presence of shade trees and awnings.

Cleanliness

Cleanliness of facilities and nearby areas.

·     Litter, particularly potentially dangerous objects.

·     Graffiti on facilities and nearby areas.

·     Effectiveness of sidewalk and path cleaning programs.

Attractiveness

The attractiveness of the facility, nearby areas and destinations.

·     Quality of facility design.

·     Quality of nearby buildings and landscaping.

·     Air and noise pollution experienced by cyclists and pedestrians.

·     Community cohesion (quantity and quality of positive interactions among people in an area).

·     Number of parks and recreational areas accessible by nonmotorized facilities.

Marketing

Effectiveness of efforts to encourage nonmotorized transportation.

·     Quality of nonmotorized education and promotion programs.

·     Nonmotorized transport included in Commute Trip Reduction programs.

This table summarizes various factors to consider when evaluating walking and cycling conditions.

 

 

Below are specific examples of nonmotorized Level-Of-Service indicators.

 

·         WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks. However, it does not consider any other factors, such as the presence or quality of walking and cycling facilities (sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, etc.) or the ease of crossing streets (the presence of crosswalks, road widths, traffic volumes and speeds, etc.), or the quality of the pedestrian environment.  

 

·         The Walkability Checklist (www.walkableamerica.org/checklist-walkability.pdf), developed by the Partnership for a Walkable America and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, provides an easy-to-use form for evaluating neighborhood walkability, taking account factors such as the quality of sidewalks and paths, roadway crossing conditions (crosswalks, and traffic speeds and volumes), the degree of care by motorist, and amenities such as shade trees and street lighting along sidewalks, as perceive by users.

 

·         CDM Research (2014) developed a mid-block level of service (LOS) model for bicycle riders which provides non-technical practitioner with a means to rapidly estimate the LOS of a current link or route and to help estimate the proportion of demand that will use competing facilities. The model is sensitive to facility type (shared path, cycleway, on-road without bicycle lanes, on-road bicycle lanes, on-road protected bicycle lanes); frequency of delay due to interaction with other path/road users; interactions with other path users (cyclists, pedestrians); car and bus volumes; presence of kerbside parking and motorized traffic speed limits.

 

·         Leinberger (2007) defines walkable urban areas based on density, mix, transit service quality, and walkability.

 

·         The Bikeability Checklist (www.walkinginfo.org/cps/checklist.htm) developed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center includes ratings for road and off-road facilities, driver behavior, cyclist behavior, and barriers, and identifies ways to improve bicycling conditions.

 

·         Patterson and Fadum (2013) developed a Cycle Zone Analysis Tool which integrates data on cycling demand (neighborhood population and demographics), roadway conditions (Bikeway Quality Index and Intersection Quality Index), path and street connectivity, and topography (hills) to rate the bikeability of various areas in a city.

 

·         The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (the main reference guide for evaluating roadway system performance) created urban roadway LOS ratings for various modes, including walking, cycling, public transit and automobile (Dowling, et al. 2008; Elias and Parks 2013).

 

ú   Cycling LOS takes into account the availability of parallel bicycle paths, the number of unsignalized intersections and driveways (because they create conflicts between cyclists and other vehicles), width of outside through lane or bicycle lane (the degree of separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic), motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, portion of heavy vehicles (large trucks and buses), the presences of parallel parked cars, grades (hills), and special conflicts such as freeway off-ramps.

 

ú   Pedestrian LOS takes into account pedestrian facility crowding, the presence of sidewalks and paths, vehicle traffic speeds and volumes, perceived separation between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic (including barriers such as parked cars and trees), street crossing widths, extra walking required to reach crosswalks, average pedestrian crossing delay (time needed to wait for a gap in traffic or a crosswalk signal), and special conflicts such as multiple free right-turn lanes (which tend to be difficult for pedestrians to cross).

 

 

·         Neighborhood Bikeability Score (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/neighborhoods.php) is a rating from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) that indicates the number of destinations (stores, schools, parks, etc.) that can be reached within a 20-minute bike ride, taking into account the quality of cycling infrastructure (McNeil 2010).  

 

·         Dixon (1996) describes LOS ratings for walking and cycling conditions, using point systems in tables 5 and 6. Table 7 converts these points into Level-Of-Service grades.

 

Table 5            Pedestrian Level-of-Service (Dixon 1996)

 

Pedestrian

Points

Facility

(Max. value = 10)

Not continuous or non-existent

Continuous on one side

Continuous on both sides

Min. 1.53 m (5’) wide & barrier free

Sidewalk width >1.53 (5’)

Off-street/parallel alternative facility

0

4

6

2

1

1

Conflicts

(Max. value = 10)

Driveways & sidestreets

Ped. Signal delay 40 sec. or less

Reduced turn conflict implementation

Crossing width 18.3 m (60’) or less

Posted speed

Medians present

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.5

1

Amenities

(Max. value = 2)

Buffer not less than 1m (3’5”)

Benches or pedestrian scale lighting

Shade trees

1

0.5

0.5

Motor Vehicle LOS

(Max. value = 2)

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes

LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes

LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes

0

1

2

Maintenance

(Max. value = 2)

Major or frequent problems

Minor or infrequent problems

No problems

-1

0

2

TDM/Multi Modal

(Max. value = 1)

No support

Support exists

0

1

 

 

Table 6            Bicycle Level-of-Service (Dixon, 1996)

 

Bicycle

Points

Facility

(Max. value = 10)

Outside lane 3.66 m (12’)

Outside lane 3.66-4.27m (12-14’)

Outside lane >4.27m (14’)

Off-street/parallel alternative facility

0

5

6

4

Conflicts

(Max. value = 10)

Driveways & sidestreets

Barrier free

No on-street parking

Medians present

Unrestricted sight distance

Intersection Implementation

1

0.5

1

0.5

0.5

0.5

Speed Differential

(Max. value = 4)

>48 KPH (>30 MPH)

40-48 KPH (25-30 MPH)

24-30 KPH (15-20 MPH)

0

1

2

Motor Vehicle LOS

(Max. value = 2)

LOS = E, F, or 6+ travel lanes

LOS = D, & < 6 travel lanes

LOS = A, B, C, & < 6 travel lanes

0

1

2

Maintenance

(Max. value = 2)

Major or frequent problems

Minor or infrequent problems

No problems

-1

0

2

TDM/Multi Modal

(Max. value = 1)

No support

Support exists

0

1

 

 

Table 7            Level of Service Ratings

LOS Rating

Points

A

>17

B

>14-17

C

>11-14

D

>7-11

E

>3-7

F

3 or less.

 

 

Shared-Use Path Level-Of-Service Ratings

The U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA, 2006) developed a Shared-Use Path LOS (SUPLOS) model, which is a mathematical formula that uses select inputs describing conditions along a trail to calculate an LOS score. This is based on detailed research that included the creation of path traffic flow theory, an extensive effort to collect data on path operations, and a survey during which path users expressed their degree of satisfaction with the paths shown on a series of videos.

 

The resulting method requires minimal input and produces a simple and useful result. The method requires only four inputs from the user: One-way user volume in the design hour, mode split percentages, trail width, and presence or absence of a centerline. Factors involved in the estimation of an LOS for a path include the number of times a typical bicyclist meets or passes another path user and the number of those passes that are delayed. The method considers five types of path users when calculating adult bicyclists' LOS, including other adult bicyclists, child bicyclists, pedestrians, runners, and in-line skaters. The FHWA provides step-by-step instructions on how to use the LOS procedure and spreadsheet calculation tool.

 

The basic SUPLOS model equation is (see the guidebook for more detailed information and cautions on using this method):

 

SUPLOS = 5.446 – 0.00809(E) – 15.86(RW) – 0.287(CL) – (DPF)

 

Where:

E = Events = Meetings per minute + 10 (active passes per minute)

RW = Reciprocal of path width (i.e., 1/path width, in feet)

CL = 1 if trail has a centerline, 0 if trail has no centerline

DPF = Delayed pass factor

The SUPLOS model generates a LOS score between zero and five.

 

The resulting SUPLOS scale can be converted to letter grades. An A is the highest score, excellent, and an F is the lowest score.

 

LOS Score

X ≥ 4.0             = A

3.5 ≤ X < 4.0    = B

3.0 ≤ X < 3.5    = C

2.5 ≤ X < 3.0    = D

2.0 ≤ X < 2.5    = E

X < 2.0             = F

 

Interpreting LOS grades.

 

A: Excellent. Trail has optimum conditions for individual bicyclists and retains ample space to

absorb more users of all modes, while providing a high-quality user experience. Some newly

built trails will provide grade-A service until they have been discovered or until their

ridership builds up to projected levels.

 

B: Good. Trail has good bicycling conditions, and retains significant room to absorb more users,

while maintaining an ability to provide a high-quality user experience.

 

C: Fair. Trail has at least minimum width to meet current demand and to provide basic service

to bicyclists. A modest level of additional capacity is available for bicyclists and skaters;

however more pedestrians, runners, or other slow-moving users will begin to diminish LOS

for bicyclists.

 

D: Poor. Trail is nearing its functional capacity given its width, volume, and mode split. Peakperiod

travel speeds are likely to be reduced by levels of crowding. The addition of more

users of any mode will result in significant service degradation. Some bicyclists and skaters

are likely to adjust their experience expectations or to avoid peak-period use.

 

E: Very Poor. Given trail width, volume, and user mix, the trail has reached its functional

capacity. Peak-period travel speeds are likely to be reduced by levels of crowding. The trail

may enjoy strong community support because of its high usage rate; however, many

bicyclists and skaters are likely to adjust their experience expectations, or to avoid peakperiod

use.

 

F: Failing. Trail significantly diminishes the experience for at least one, and most likely for all

user groups. It does not effectively serve most bicyclists; significant user conflicts should be

expected.

 

 

Public Transit Level-Of-Service (TRB 2013)

Table 8 lists factors to consider when evaluating Public Transit service quality. These rating factors can be adjusted as needed for various locations, types of trips and users. For example, Transit Level-of-Service can be rated for a particular geographic area or location, such as a neighborhood or worksite; for a particular type of trip, such as commuting or travel to medical services; and for particular users, such as commuters and visitors.

 

Table 8            Transit Level-of-Service Rating Factors

Feature

Description

Indicators

Availability

Where and when transit service is available.

·     Annual service-kilometers per capita.

·     Daily service hours.

·     Portion of destinations within 500 meters of transit service.

Frequency

Frequency of service and average wait time.

·     Trips per hour or day

·     Headways (time between trips)

·     Average waiting times

Travel Speed

Transit travel speed.

·     Average vehicle speeds.

·     Door-to-door travel time.

·     Transit travel speed relative to driving the same trip.

Reliability

How well service actually follows published schedules.

·     On-time operation.

·     Portion of transfer connections made.

·     Mechanical failure frequency.

Boarding speed

Vehicle loading and unloading speed.

·     Average dwell time.

·     Boarding and alighting speeds.

Safety and security

Users perceived safety and security.

·     Perceived transit passenger security.

·     Accidents and injuries per million transit trips.

·     Reported security incidents.

·     Visibility and lighting.

·     Portion of transit equipment vandalized.

·     Agency responsiveness to perceived risks.

Price and affordability

Fare prices, structure, payment options, ease of purchase.

·     Fares relative to average incomes.

·     Fares relative to lower-incomes.

·     Fares relative to other travel modes.

·     Payment options (cash, credit cards, etc.)

·     Ticket availability (stations, stores, Internet, etc.)

Integration

Ease of transferring between transit and other modes (bus, train, ferry, airport, etc.).

·     Integration between transit service providers.

·     Integration between transit and other modes.

Comfort

Passenger comfort

·     Seating availability and quality.

·     Space (lack of crowding).

·     Noise levels.

·     Temperature (neither too hot or cold).

·     Passenger air quality.

·     Station and vehicle cleanliness.

·     On board washrooms and refreshments (for longer trips).

Accessibility

Ease of reaching transit stations and stops.

·     Transit Oriented Development.

·     Distance from transit stations and stops to destinations.

·     Walkability (quality of walking conditions) in areas serviced by transit.

Baggage

Accommodation of passenger baggage.

·     Ability, ease and cost of carrying baggage, including special items such as pets.

Universal design

Accommodation of diverse users including people with disabilities and other special needs.

·     Accommodation of people with special needs in transit vehicles, stations and station areas.

·     Ability to carry baggage.

·     Ability to accommodate people who cannot read or understand the local language.

User information

Ease of obtaining user information.

·     Availability, accuracy and understandability of route, schedule and fare information, at stops, stations, destinations; by Internet and mobile telephone; and by transit agency staff and other information providers.

·     Real-time transit vehicle arrival information.

·     Information available for people with special needs (audio or visual disabilities, inability to read or understand the local language, etc.)

Courtesy and responsiveness

Courtesy with which passengers are treated.

·     How passengers are treated by transit staff.

·     Ease of filing a complaint.

·     Agency responsiveness to complaints.

Attractiveness

The attractiveness of public transit facilities.

·     Attractiveness of vehicles and facilities.

·     Attractiveness of documents and websites.

·     Livability (environmental and social quality of an area) of transit stop and station areas.

·     Provision of public art.

Amenity

Features and services that enhance user enjoyment

·     Internet service (on vehicles and in waiting areas).

·     Entertainment.

·     Integration with community events and activities.

Marketing

Effectiveness of efforts to encourage public transportation.

·     Popularity of promotion programs.

·     Effectiveness at raising the social status of transit travel.

·     Ridership increases in response to marketing efforts.

This table summarizes various factors to consider when evaluating public transport services.

 

 

Some systems evaluate overall accessibility of Transit-Oriented Development (Renne 2007). Pollack, Gartsman and Wood (2013) developed the eTOD station area rating system which evaluates specific rail stations based on the quality of transit service, rider orientation (the types of transit riders they tend to serve) and the connectivity of local development to the station.

 

Several walking and cycling Level-Of-Service rating systems have been developed. Some are more complete than others, as summarized in Table 9. Newer indices tend to be more comprehensive and therefore more accurate at evaluating service quality and predicting the effects of changes in transit service and accessibility.

 

Table 9            Transit Indices Compared (Fu, Saccomanno and Xin 2005)

Indices

Studies

Performance Factors Incorporated

Reflects

Transit Availability?

Reflects Comfort and Convenience?

Reflects Travel Demand?

Local Index of Transit Availability

Rood, 1997

Frequency; capacity; route coverage

Yes

No

No

Public Transportation Accessibility Level

Hillman,

Service frequency; service coverage

Yes

No

No

Transit Level of Service Indicator

Kittelson & Associates and

URS, 2001

Service coverage; frequency; service span; population; jobs

Yes

No

Yes

Transit Service Accessibility Index

Polzin et al., 2002

Service coverage; service span; frequency; travel demand

Yes

No

Total number of trips

Mobility Index

Galindez and Mireles- Cordov, 1999

Travel speed; average vehicle occupancy

No

Yes

No

Service Quality Index

Hensher et al., 2001

13 variables (i.e., travel time; frequency, etc.)

Yes

No

Yes

Transit Service Indicator (TSI)

Fu, Saccomanno and Xin, 2005

Service frequency, coverage, and various travel time components (walk, wait, transfer, and ride)

Yes

Yes

Yes

This table compares various indices that can be used to evaluate service quality and predict the effects of service changes.

 

 

Table 10 lists various factors that can be considered when evaluating Transit Stations and Stops.

 

Table 10          Transit Station and Stop Level-Of-Service Factors

Feature

Description

Indicators

Weather protection

User protected from sun and rain.

·     Bus shelters and covered platforms.

·     Shade trees and awnings.

·     Enclosed waiting areas.

Sense of Security

Perceived threats of accident, assault, theft or abuse.

·     Perceived transit passenger security.

·     Accidents and injuries.

·     Reported security incidents.

·     Visibility and lighting.

·     Official response to perceived risks.

·     Availability of emergency phones and security alert systems.

Comfort

Passenger comfort.

·     Seating availability and quality.

·     Space (lack of crowding).

·     Quiet (lack of excessive noise).

·     Fresh air (lack of unpleasant smells)

·     Temperature (neither too hot or cold)

·     Cleanliness of stations and nearby areas.

·     Availability of washrooms and refreshments.

Efficiency

Ease and speed of station activities.

·     Ticket purchasing.

·     Baggage checking and collecting.

·     Security inspections.

·     Proximity of transit transfers and multimodal connections.

Accessibility

Ease of reaching transit stations and stops.

·     Distance from transit stations and stops to destinations.

·     Walkability (quality of walking conditions) in areas serviced by transit.

·     Automobile Park-&-Ride availability.

·     Bicycle Parking availability.

·     Taxi service availability.

Transit-Oriented Development

Quality of development in areas near transit stations and stops.

·     Quality and density of development within 500 meters of transit stations.

·     Walkability (quality of walking conditions) in areas serviced by transit.

·     Affordability of housing within 500 meters of transit stations.

Universal design

Accommodation of diverse users including people with special needs.

·     Accessible design for stations and nearby areas.

·     Ability to carry baggage

·     Ability to accommodate people who cannot read or understand the local language.

User information

Ease of obtaining information on transit routes, schedules, fares, connections, and destinations.

·     Availability, accuracy and understandability of information at stops, stations, destinations, Internet, telephone, and transit staff.

·     Real-time transit vehicle arrival information.

·     Availability and quality of wayfinding signs, maps and other information for navigating within the station and to nearby destinations.

·     Quality of announcements.

·     Availability of information for people with special needs (audio or visual disabilities, inability to read or understand the local language, etc.).

·     Availability of pay telephones and taxi phones.

Courtesy and responsiveness

Courtesy with which passengers are treated.

·     How passengers are treated by transit staff.

·     Ease of filing a complaint.

·     Speed and responsiveness with which complaints are treated.

Attractiveness

Attractiveness of transit stations and stops.

·     Attractiveness and cleanliness of stations and stops.

·     Attractiveness and cleanliness of station areas.

·     Provision of public art.

This table lists various factors to consider when evaluating public transit Stations and Stops.

 

 

Table 11 indicates how passenger density (passengers per square meter) affects level-of-service ratings and travel time adjustment factors for transit passengers waiting and walking.

 

Table 11          Density and Crowing Factors (Douglas Economics, 2006)

Passengers Per Square Meter (PSM)

Level-Of-Service

Ratings

Travel Time Value Adjustment Factors

 

 

Waiting

Walking

0.0-0.2

A

1.00

1.50

0.5

B

1.00

1.50

0.7

C

1.02

1.50

0.9

D

1.09

1.50

1.0

D

1.14

1.50

1.2

D

1.27

1.50

1.5

D

1.55

1.65

1.7

E

1.79

1.94

1.9

E

2.08

2.27

2.0

E

2.10

2.30

2.5

E

3.20

3.60

2.7

F

3.66

4.15

3.0

F

4.44

5.06

3.3

F

5.31

6.10

3.5

F

5.95

6.85

This table indicates the level-of-service ratings and crowding factors for various passenger densities. Crowding factors are multipliers relative to in-vehicle time cost values. This indicates, for example, that at 1.0 passengers per square meter, waiting time is 1.14 times in-vehicle travel time values, and walking time is 1.50 in-vehicle travel time.

 

 

Other Levels-Of-Service Indicators

Below are examples of Level-Of-Service indicators for other modes and transport services.

 

Ridesharing

Ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling) consists of travelers who share a vehicle, making use of otherwise unoccupied seats. Below are indicators of Ridesharing quality.

 

 

Taxi

Below are indicators of Taxi service quality.

·         Availability. Number of taxis per capita or per non-driver in an area.

·         Availability of taxis that accommodate people with special needs, such as wheelchair users.

·         Ease of ordering taxi services.

·         Reliability. Average dispatch time, and maximum delays.

·         Price for an average trip relative to users’ income. Availability of subsidies and discounts for people with special needs (such as disabilities) and other frequent users.

·         Vehicle comfort and cleanliness.

·         Driver and dispatcher courtesy.

·         Safety.

·         Number of user complaints.

 

 

How it is Implemented

Multi-Modal Level-of-Service standards are generally established by transportation organizations, such as the Transportation Research Board and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, formally adopted by transportation agencies and jurisdictions, and applied to individual transportation professionals, particularly transport planners and engineers. They are applied by planners in their analysis, by public officials in their finance policies and priorities, and by facility designers. Multi-modal

 

There are several steps in developing and applying such indicators:

 

  1. Define quantifiable indicators. This involves identifying a reasonable set of indicators, suitable for quantification, that reflect various types of user impacts, such as speed, convenience, comfort and safety (examples are described in the following section).

 

  1. Determine quantification methods. This is usually done by experts, based on surveys to help determine user needs and preferences. For example, speed may be measured in average kilometers-per-hour, crowding in people per square meter, and security in assaults per million passenger trips.

 

  1. Collect data. This may involve using existing data (such as vehicle traffic speeds), collecting new data (such as transit station crowding), or special user surveys to rate the quality of certain facilities and services.

 

  1. Integrate results into an index. Individual indicators can be combined into an index. For example, several indicators reflecting various impacts (speed, convenience, comfort, etc.) can be averaged and converted from a numerical value into a letter grade. Some indicators may be considered more important than others and so should receive more weight.

 

  1. Incorporate results into the planning process. Use Level-of-Service indicators to identify problems, evaluate potential improvements, compare different systems and jurisdictions, and track trends.

 

 

Travel Impacts

Adoptions and application of Multi-Modal LOS standards can help create a more multi-modal transport system, resulting in reduced automobile travel and increased use of alternative modes. Impacts vary, depending on specific conditions, but large reductions in automobile travel are possible if improved transportation planning analysis leads to significant improvements in alternative mode service quality.

 

 

Benefits And Costs

Application of Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators contributes toward the development of an efficient, multi-modal transport system, which helps achieve virtually all TDM benefits. Multi-Modal LOS indictors help create more Sustainable transportation by incorporating more impacts and modes into the planning process.

 

Table 12          Benefit Summary

Objective

Rating

Comments

Congestion Reduction

2

Reduces total automobile use.

Road & Parking Savings

2

Reduces total automobile ownership and use.

Consumer Savings

2

Reduces total transportation expenditures.

Transport Choice

3

Makes driving more affordable.

Road Safety

2

Reduces total automobile use.

Environmental Protection

2

Reduces total automobile use.

Efficient Land Use

2

Supports reduced automobile ownership.

Community Livability

2

Reduces total automobile use.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Equity Impacts

By helping to quantify impacts on alternative modes and encourage creation of a more multi-modal transportation system, Multi-Modal LOS standards helps achieve virtually all equity objectives.

 

Table 13        Equity Summary

Criteria

Rating

Comments

Treats everybody equally.

3

 

Individuals bear the costs they impose.

1

 

Progressive with respect to income.

3

Benefits lower-income drivers.

Benefits transportation disadvantaged.

3

Benefits some transportation disadvantaged people.

Improves basic mobility.

3

Improves occasional access to an automobile.

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Applications

Multi-Modal LOS standards can be developed and implemented by virtually all transportation planning organizations. It is particularly important in large urban areas where more multi-modal transportation planning is particularly beneficial.

 

Table 14        Application Summary

Geographic

Rating

Organization

Rating

Large urban region

3

Federal government

2

High-density, urban

3

State/provincial government

3

Medium-density, urban/suburban

2

Regional government

3

Town

2

Municipal/local government

3

Low-density, rural

1

Business Associations/TMA

3

Commercial center

3

Individual business

2

Residential neighborhood

3

Developer

2

Resort/recreation area

3

Neighborhood association

2

 

 

Campus

3

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

 

 

Category

Improved Travel Choice

 

 

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

For more information on the concepts and techniques discussed in this chapter see Measuring Transportation, TDM Evaluation, TDM Planning, Comprehensive Transportation Evaluation, Modeling Improvements, Equity Analysis, Transportation Statistics, Data Collection, and Evaluating Transportation Diversity.

 

 

Stakeholders

Stakeholders primarily consist of various government agencies involved in transportation Planning and Operations, plus anybody involved in helping to create more multi-modal transportation systems.

 

 

Barriers To Implementation

Major barriers to Multi-Modal Level-of-Service implementation include limited experience with such practices, and funding practices that favor roadway capacity expansion over management solutions. Change Management is generally required to help practitioners incorporate these ideas.

 

 

Best Practices

The following are general guidelines for developing Multi-Modal Level-Of-Service standards:

 

·         Use existing Multi-Modal Level-of-Service indicators, and modify them to reflect the needs of a particular situation.

 

·         Avoid oversimplifying the indicators. Incorporate enough factors to accurately reflect the variety of problems that users may face, including comfort, convenience, security and affordability.

 

·         For Equity analysis, evaluate the quality of service experienced by various types of users, particularly those who are economically, physically or socially disadvantaged.

 

·         Consult with users to determine the factors that they consider important when creating LOS rating systems.

 

 

Wit and Humor

 

While watching her mother wash dishes at the kitchen sink a little girl noticed several grey strands in her mother’s otherwise brunette hair. She asked, “Why are some of your hairs grey, Mom?”


Her mother replied, “Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns grey.”

The little girl pondered this revelation and then asked, “Momma, how come all of grandma’s hairs are grey?”

 

 

Case Studies and Examples

 

Multi-Modal Performance Evaluation

A key step toward more comprehensive and multi-modal transportation planning is the development of practical indicators of walking, cycling and public transit travel conditions, which can be used to identify potential problems and evaluate potential improvements. Below are specific examples of multi-modal performance indicators.

 

·         The Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual (www.trb.org/main/blurbs/169437.aspx) provides guidance on Evaluating Public Transit service quality, including factors such as availability, frequency, travel speed, reliability, safety and security, price and affordability, network and system integration, comfort, accessibility, baggage capacity, universal design, user information, courtesy and attractiveness.

 

·         The 2010 Highway Capacity Manual (the main reference guide for evaluating roadway system performance) created urban roadway LOS ratings for various modes, including walking, cycling, public transit and automobile (Dowling, et al. 2008; Elias and Parks 2013).

 

ú   Cycling LOS takes into account the availability of parallel bicycle paths, the number of unsignalized intersections and driveways (because they create conflicts between cyclists and other vehicles), width of outside through lane or bicycle lane (the degree of separation between bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic), motor vehicle traffic volumes and speeds, portion of heavy vehicles (large trucks and buses), the presences of parallel parked cars, grades (hills), and special conflicts such as freeway off-ramps.

 

ú   Pedestrian LOS takes into account pedestrian facility crowding, the presence of sidewalks and paths, vehicle traffic speeds and volumes, perceived separation between pedestrians and motor vehicle traffic (including barriers such as parked cars and trees), street crossing widths, extra walking required to reach crosswalks, average pedestrian crossing delay (time needed to wait for a gap in traffic or a crosswalk signal), and special conflicts such as multiple free right-turn lanes (which tend to be difficult for pedestrians to cross).

 

 

·         WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks. However, it does not consider any other factors, such as the presence or quality of walking and cycling facilities (sidewalks, paths, crosswalks, etc.) or the ease of crossing streets (the presence of crosswalks, road widths, traffic volumes and speeds, etc.), or the quality of the pedestrian environment. 

 

·         The Walkability Checklist (www.walkableamerica.org/checklist-walkability.pdf), developed by the Partnership for a Walkable America and the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, provides an easy-to-use form for evaluating neighborhood walkability, taking account factors such as the quality of sidewalks and paths, roadway crossing conditions (crosswalks, and traffic speeds and volumes), the degree of care by motorist, and amenities such as shade trees and street lighting along sidewalks, as perceive by users.

 

·         The Bikeability Checklist (www.walkinginfo.org/cps/checklist.htm) developed by the Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center includes ratings for road and off-road facilities, driver behavior, cyclist behavior, and barriers, and identifies ways to improve bicycling conditions.

 

·         Neighborhood Bikeability Score (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/neighborhoods.php) is a rating from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) that indicates the number of destinations (stores, schools, parks, etc.) that can be reached within a 20-minute bike ride, taking into account the quality of cycling infrastructure.  

 

 

Florida Multi-Modal Quality/Level of Service (www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm)

The Florida Department of Transportation has adopted multi-modal Level-of-Service (LOS) standards. These standards provide a method of measuring highway performance for use in prioritizing transportation projects and land-use planning. To support their application, FDOT has developed a set of techniques and analysis tools for calculating LOS and applying it to specific planning decisions, including the Quality/Level of Service Handbook, LOS evaluation software, and an ongoing research and professional development program to support development and implementation of these tools.

 

 

Healthy Community Evaluation (www.euro.who.int/document/E91883.pdf)

The report, A Healthy City Is An Active City: A Physical Activity Planning Guide (Edwards and Tsouros, 2008) includes various checklists that can be used to evaluate how well a particular community accommodates and encourages active transportation (walking and cycling) and other healthy community features.

 

 

Complete Streets Checklist (NJDOT 2012)

The New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Guide to Creating a Complete Streets Implementation Plan includes a checklist that can be used by transportation agencies to evaluate whether specific roadway projects include complete streets features that accommodate diverse users and uses, including universal design, walking, cycling, public transit, automobile, freight, landscaping, and consistency with strategic land use development plans.

 

 

Montgomery County Traffic Impact Assessment (www.mcparkandplanning.org/development/agp/agphome.shtm)

In 2007 the Montgomery County Council adopted a unique area-wide transportation test, called Policy Area Mobility Review (PAMR), as a growth management tool. PAMR supplements the Local Area Transportation Review process (a fairly standard transportation impact analysis of nearby intersections). PAMR signals a shift in Montgomery County from measuring traffic capacity to assessing mobility. It has two components:

·         Relative Arterial Mobility (RAM), the ratio between forecasted congested travel times and free-flow travel times.

·         Relative Transit Mobility (RTM), the relative speed by which journey-to-work trips can be made via transit travel as compared to auto travel

 

PAMR uses the regional metropolitan planning organization travel demand model to forecast conditions for a horizon year that includes previously approved development (the “pipeline”) countywide and regional growth and transportation projects funded in the next four fiscal years. The RTM and transit level of service (LOS) is established for each zone (called policy areas). The area’s arterial LOS requirements are based on the forecasted transit LOS and the RAM. For areas with adequate RAM, applicants need take no action under PAMR. For policy areas where relative arterial mobility is insufficient applicants must support the following mitigation actions:

1. Participate in a trip reduction program.

2. Provide off-site non-automobile facilities such as sidewalks or bike racks.

3. Provide and operate transit services.

4. Construct off-site roadway segments.

 

 

Level-Of-Service Used For Travel Time Valuation (www.vtpi.org/quality.pdf)

In the report, Build for Comfort, Not Just Speed: Valuing Service Quality Impacts In Transport Planning, Litman (2007) describes how to use Level-of-Service ratings to adjust travel time values to reflect the degree of discomfort experienced by users of a particular mode, as summarized in Table 15. For example, if wages average $12.00 per hour, a drivers’ time is valued at $6.00 per hour under LOS A to C, but increases to $8.00 per hour under LOS D, $10.00 per hours under LOS E, and $12.00 per hour under LOS F conditions. Similarly, unit travel time costs for transit passengers, pedestrians and cyclists increase as their LOS rating decline. This system does not specify exactly how walking, cycling and public transit Level-of-Service is quantified; it is up to practioners to select suitable LOS rating systems.

 

Table 15          Travel Time Values Relative To Prevailing Wages (Litman, 2007)

Category

LOS A-C

LOS D

LOS E

LOS F

Waiting Conditions

 

 

 

 

 

Good*

Average

Poor

Commercial vehicle driver

120%

137%

154%

170%

 

170%

 

Comm. vehicle passenger

120%

132%

144%

155%

 

155%

 

City bus driver

156%

156%

156%

156%

 

156%

 

Personal vehicle driver

50%

67%

84%

100%

 

100%

 

Adult car passenger

35%

47%

58%

70%

 

100%

 

Adult transit passenger – seated

35%

47%

58%

70%

35%

50%

125%

Adult transit passenger – standing

50%

67%

83%

100%

50%

70%

175%

Child (<16 years) – seated

25%

33%

42%

50%

25%

50%

125%

Child (<16 years) – standing

35%

46%

60%

66%

50%

70%

175%

Pedestrians and cyclists

50%

67%

84%

100%

50%

100%

200%

Transit Transfer Premium

 

 

 

 

5-min.

10-min.

15-min.

This summarizes travel time values that incorporate traveler convenience and comfort factors. (* Wait time unit costs are reduced another 20-30% where real-time vehicle arrival information is provided.)

 

 

City of Orlando Development Fee Structure (Orlando 1998)

As is common in rapidly-growing jurisdictions, the city of Orlando charges development fees to help recover the costs of accommodating additional vehicle traffic generated by new buildings. Starting in 1998 the city has adjusted those fees to reflect the lower vehicle-miles generated by developments in more multi-modal locations. For example, a multi-family housing unit located in the downtown area is charged a $374 fee, compared with an $807 if in an automobile-dependent location. Similarly, a small retail building would be charged a fee of $2,659 per 1,000 square feet of floor area if located downtown, but $4,647 if located in a more automobile-dependent location.

 

 

Austin Transportation User Fees

Austin, Texas (www.ci.austin.tx.us) utility bills include a Transportation User Fee (TUF) based on the average number of motor vehicle trips generated per property, reflecting its size and use (City of Austin Code 14-10). For example, single-family development is estimated to generate 40 motor vehicle trips per acre per day, condominium residential use and townhouse residential use generate approximately 60 motor vehicle trips per acre per day, and offices generate approximately 180 motor vehicle trips per acre per day. The charge averages $30 to $40 annually for a typical household. The city provides exemptions to residential properties with occupants that do not own or regularly use a private motor vehicle for transportation, or if the user is 65 years of age or older.

 

 

Fort Collins, Colorado

A special Multimodal Transportation Level of Service Manual is used in Fort Collins and nearby urban areas to evaluate accessibility, connectivity and continuity of various modes. The city established varying minimal acceptable levels of service (LOS) depending on street classification and land use. These standards range from LOS B on connectors in low-density, mixed residential areas, to LOS E on arterials in commercial corridors and mixed-use districts. Pedestrian and bicycling LOS standards take into account directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest, amenities and security of pedestrian and cycling facilities. Specific pedestrian LOS standards are established for transit corridors and around schools.

 

 

Walkable, Bikeable Cities

Various organizations publish various rankings, such as the “Ten Most Walkable Cities” or “Ten Most Bikable Cities.” Such rankings should stimulate discussion about what constitutes a walkable/bikeable community, what are the benefits of more active transport, and what are practical ways that a community can improve active transport. However, such lists tend to be incomplete and biased; they typically reflect some set of conveniently-available data and perhaps some recent media coverage. They can also be counter-productive – for example, if the list of Most Walkable U.S. Cities leads with New York and San Franciso, many people will  think, “Our community will never be very successful in this competition,” and give up.

 

Rather than rating cities as “best” it is often better to rate “most improved,” recognizing that even communities that begin with poor conditions can improve significantly, and this often provides the greatest benefits. Ratings should generally be based on comparisons with peer communities; for example, large cities compared with large cities, college towns compared with other college towns, and suburbs compared with other suburbs. A balanced index includes some inputs (e.g., the quality of pedestrian and bicycle planning, whether transport planning is multi-modal); some outputs (the degree to which the plans are implemented, resulting in more sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, bike racks, traffic calming, etc.), and some outcomes (per capita walking and cycling trips, growth in the use of these modes, reductions in VMT, changes in pedestrian and cycling casualty rates, etc.). It is also useful to include a category called “Leadership” which recognizes innovative policies and programs.

 

Table 16 illustrates and example of appropriate indicators for rating walkable and bikeable communities.

 

Table 16          Walkable and Bikeable Community Indicators

Indicator

How Measured

Pedestrian Plan

Does the jurisdiction have a plan? What quality? How well is it being implemented?

Bike Plan

Does the jurisdiction have a plan? What quality? How well is it being implemented?

Multi-Modal transport planning

Does the jurisdiction apply multi-modal evaluation to all transport planning decisions? Does it use multi-modal level-of-service ratings?

Active transport funding

How does pedestrian and bicycle program funding compare with active transport mode share targets, for example, if the target is 15% of trips by walking and cycling, is 15% of the total transport budget devoted to improving these modes?

Complete streets policies

Does the jurisdiction have complete streets policies which insure that walking and cycling are considered in all roadway planning? How well are they being implemented?

Smart growth policies

Does the jurisdiction have complete streets policies which encourages more compact, walkable development? How well are they being implemented?

Affordable-accessible housing

Does the jurisdiction encourage the development of affordable housing in walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented neighborhoods?

Active transport mode share

What portion of total trips in the region are by walking and cycling, and is this growing.

Active transport safety

What portion of crash casualties are pedestrians and cyclists, and is this declining?

Active transport leadership

What innovative policies and programs is the jurisdiction implementing.

Various indicators should be considered when rating and comparing a jurisdiction for walkability and bikability.

 

 

Changing Transportation Performance Indicators in Bellingham (Comeau 2009)

Bellingham, a medium-size city in Washington State, changed from auto-centric and roadway-based transportation planning to inclusive, flexible, and integrated multimodal transportation planning and concurrency standards. A key step in this process was a shift from employing traditional level of service (LOS) methodology in urban settings to an innovative new LOS methodology specifically designed to help achieve the city’s Comprehensive Plan’s infill and multimodal goals. In the article, Moving Beyond the Automobile: Multimodal Transportation Planning in Bellingham, Washington, transportation planner Chris Comeau describes this process and the lessons learned.

 

The new system used multi-modal performance indicators as indicated in Table 17.

 

Table 17          Multimodal Transportation Concurrency Measurements (Comeau 2009)

Mode

Measurement

Motorized

 

Automobiles

Arterial volume-to-capacity measured during weekday p.m. peak hour based on data collected at designated concurrency measurement points in concurrency service areas

Public Transit

Seated capacity based on bus size and route frequency and ridership based on annual  transit surveys measured during weekday p.m. peak hour based on data collected at designated concurrency measurement points for each concurrency service area

Non-Motorized

 

Bicycle

Credit person trips according to degree of bicycle network completeness for designated system facilities/routes for each concurrency service area

Pedestrian

Credit person trips according to degree of pedestrian network completeness for designated system facilities/routes for each concurrency service area

Trail Use

Credit person trips according to degree of trail network completeness, where trails serve a clear transportation function for a concurrency service area

Bellingham shifted from roadway Level-of-Service to multi-modal performance indicators.

 

Multimodal Street Performance Evaluation (Brozen, et al. 2014)

This study compared four often-cited multimodal level of service (LOS) metrics; those of the cities of Fort Collins, Colorado and Charlotte, North Carolina; metrics developed by the San Francisco Department of Public Health (BEQI/PEQI), and the multimodal LOS metrics of the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual. It explored the differences between each metric and how those affect analysis results by applying then to the same five street segments representing a variety of physical and operational characteristics. The study found that these tools can produce radically different scores for the same street segment. The analysis indicates that with segments that rate relatively good for walking and cycling the tools produced fairly similar scores, but as active transport quality decline the scores diverged. This exercise also elucidated some challenges in using the tools; including their inability to evaluate innovative or unusual infrastructure; such as a pedestrian mall. The study recommends that transportation agencies select tools that are most consistent with their goals and perspective.

 

The study also analyzed how sensitive each tool is to assess current conditions and evaluate proposed future changes. The researchers analyzed the projected impacts of proposed five different pedestrian and bicycle improvement scenarios for a selected street segment. The results indicate that all of the scoring mechanisms recommended a road diet scenario with a painted buffer next to a bicycle lane, but newer bicycle configurations and treatments were often difficult and sometimes impossible to evaluate using these tools. The favored pedestrian scenario differed from the favored bicycle scenario, and the results were less consistent. Overall, the results demonstrate that these tools can evaluate changes to the street and guide future improvements. However, their ability to measure the effectiveness of innovative treatments is limited.

 

Australia (Green and Espada 2015)

Austroads, Australia and New Zealand’s lead transport planning organization, developed a multi-modal level of service (LOS) framework which assesses transport system performance from the perspective of various users (private motorists, transit users, pedestrians, cyclists and freight operators) and planning objectives (mobility, safety, access, information and amenity). It does not require extensive new data or computations. This framework is intended to help practitioners and decision-makers better define appropriate levels of customer service in order to balance competing demands in roadway design.

 

Table 18 illustrates examples of multi-modal LOS ratings which, like conventional roadway LOS ratings, primarily measure travel speeds and delay.

 

Table 18          Examples of Multi-Modal LOS Ratings (Green and Espada 2015)

LOS

Transit

Pedestrian

Bicycle

Freight

Car

A

No route delay. Always runs to timetable.

Opportunities to cross within 25 m. Minimal crossing delay.

High degree of separation. Minimal delay.

No delay. No variability.

No delay. No variability.

Delay

< 10 s – advanced sensors

< 10 s – unlikely to have to stop

B

Minimal route delay and slight manoeuvring restrictions.

Opportunities to cross within 50 m. Average crossing delay is 30 sec

Well separated at midblock with some conflict at intersections.

Minimal intersection delay

Minimal intersection delay

Delay

< 20 s – may have to stop

C

Stop at every set of signals. Within 5 min of timetable.

Crossing within 100 m. Average crossing delay is 45 sec.

On-road bicycle lane.

Stop at every set of signals.

Stop at every set of signals.

Delay

< 35 s – likely to have to stop

D

Always joining the back of an existing queue at an intersection and take two signal cycles to clear.

Crossing within 200 m. Average crossing delay is 60 sec

On-road bicycle lane but no lane approaching major intersections.

Always joining the back of an existing queue at an intersection and take two signal cycles to clear.

Always joining the back of an existing queue at an intersection and take two signal cycles to clear.

Delay

< 90 s – multiple crossing conflicts

< 90 s – wait until second green phase

E

Takes at least three signal cycles to clear intersection.

Crossing within 400 m. Average crossing delay is less than 90 sec.

Bicycles share traffic lanes.

Takes at least three signal cycles to clear intersection.

Takes at least three signal cycles to clear intersection.

Delay

< 180 s – or no crossing provision

< 180 s – wait until third green phase

F

Very low speeds, backups from downstream or right-turning traffic ahead of tram/bus significantly impacts traffic flow.

Crossing opportunities are more than 400 m from demand. Average crossing delay is more than 90 sec.

No special bicycle facility.

Very low speeds, backups from downstream significantly impacts traffic flow.

Very low speeds, backups from downstream significantly impacts traffic flow.

Delay

< 240 s – barriers to crossing

< 240 s – wait for more than three green phases

This table summarizes LOS performance indicators that primarily measure travel speeds and delay.

 

 

Table 19 summarizes the indicators used in Austroad’s proposed rating system, which reflect a wider range of planning objectives besides travel speed and delay.

 

Table 19          Overview of Proposed LOS Framework (Green and Espada 2015)

Road User

LOS Needs

LOS Measure

Private motorist

Mobility

Congestion, travel time reliability, travel speed

Safety

Crash risk

Access

Ability to park close to destination; ability to access roadside land or ability to depart an intersection

Information

Traveller information available

Amenity

Aesthetics, driving stress, pavement ride quality

Transit User

Mobility

Service schedule reliability, operating speed

Safety

Crash risk of transit vehicle, crash risk of transit users while accessing/egressing transit vehicle

Access

Service availability (urban services only), level of disability access, access to transit user stops/stations from key origins and destinations

Information

Traveller information available

Amenity

Pedestrian environment, on-board congestion, seat availability, security, comfort and convenience features, aesthetics, ride quality

Pedestrian

Mobility

Footpath congestion, grade of path, crossing delay or detour

Safety

Exposure to vehicles at mid-blocks; Exposure to vehicles at crossings; trip hazards

Access

Crossing opportunities, level of disability access

Information

Traveller information available including signposting

Amenity

Footpath pavement conditions, comfort and convenience features, security, aesthetics

Cyclist

Mobility

Travel speed, congestion, grades

Safety

Risk of cycle-to-cycle/pedestrian crash

Risk of crash caused by surface unevenness or slippage

Risk of crash with stationary hazards

Risk of cycle-to-motor vehicle crash at mid-blocks

Risk of cycle-to-motor vehicle crash at intersections and/or driveways

Access

Access to and ability to park close to destination, cycle restrictions

Information

Traveller information available, including signposting

Amenity

Aesthetics, comfort and convenience, security, pavement ride quality

Freight

Mobility

Congestion, travel time reliability, travel speed

Safety

Crash risk

Access

Level of freight vehicle type access

Information

Traveller information

Amenity

Pavement ride quality, driving stress

New York City has established these goals, strategies and metrics for evaluating city street performance.

 

 

This framework is applied to several case studies which demonstrate its feasibility and utility. They show that multi-modal indicators can help transport agencies be more comprehensive and transparent when making trade-offs between the quality of travel by different modes.

 

 

Replacing Roadway LOS For Development Impact Analysis in San Francisco (www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Executive/Meetings/pnp/2008/09sept09/atg%20memo%20pnp.pdf)

The City of San Francisco has used the Highway Capacity Manual’s Level of Service (LOS) intersection delay measure to evaluate the transportation impacts of new developments. However, this tends to contradict the city’s efforts to encourage compact, infill development, in support of its Transit First policy. Although such development may reduce nearby roadway LOS ratings in the short term, this is offset by improved accessibility and improvements to transit, bicycling, and walking conditions.

 

Hiatt, Ferrell and Letunic (2008) describe the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s effort to define a transport impact analysis measure based on the volume of auto trips generated by a project. Potential “thresholds of significance” – the points at which the volume of auto trips generated by a proposed project constitutes a significant negative environmental impact – are described. The thresholds under consideration are based on the effects of auto traffic on mobility, quality of travel service, safety, neighborhood conditions, and other factors. The near term objective of the effort is to forward a new measure and threshold for adoption by the City for environmental impacts analysis purposes. In the longer term, the measure could provide a basis for a transportation impact fee.

 

The Authority is encouraging the City to replace LOS with a measure based on the number of automobile trips generated by a proposed project. Projects that generate no net new automobile trips would not be considered to have transportation impacts under CEQA. Projects that do generate automobile trips would be able to mitigate their impacts by paying a new transportation impact mitigation fee that would fund a set of citywide and local area projects designed to address environmental impacts caused by the project. This approach is a better indicator of environmental effect than LOS; it is consistent with the City’s Transit First policy and other environmental and health goals; it is more efficient and transparent for the Planning Department to implement and for project sponsors to understand; and it is a more effective approach to transportation impact mitigation. The report recommends the adoption of a new ATG measure and TIMF program by the City, and proposes that the Authority partner with City agencies on the initiation of a nexus study to support the new program. Table 20 summarizes a portion of the study’s analysis of the relationships between Average Trips Generated (ATG) and various impacts.

 

Table 20          Links between ATG and Effects on the Environment (SFCTA, 2008)

Perspective

Impacts

Direction of Effects

Data Sources

Links between ATG and Effects on the Environment

 

Safety

 

Increased ATG increases risk or rate of collisions, particularly involving pedestrians and bicyclists

 

Published studies correlating automobile volumes / miles with collision rate or risk. Potential threshold: vehicle volumes associated with 34 collisions/year/100,000 population, based on Healthy Peoples goals. This threshold is exceeded in much of SF.

 

Quality of Transportation Services

 

Increased ATG reduces Quality of Service (“Q/LOS”) for pedestrians and bicyclists

Equations for pedestrian and bicycle “Q/LOS” use automobile volumes as a negatively related independent variable

 

System Operator

Perspective

 

Transportation System Efficiency

Increased ATG reduces Person throughput in cars and on transit

 

Added automobile volumes reduce person throughput (beyond data-based inflection point) as shown by transformations of the standard Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) curve: throughput increases as volumes increase until v/c ratio causes speeds to drop beyond inflection point

 

Mode Share

Increased automobile mode share reduces transportation system performance and reduces ability to meet local transportation plan goals

Automobile mode shares (by TAZ or other area type) in given (existing CWTP (2000) year or future CWTP horizon year, by land use type

 

Externalities

Noise

Increased ATG increases noise pollution experienced by sidewalk and adjacent land uses

Studies identify automobile volumes as an independent variable in understanding noise pollution impacts on residential property values

 

Neighborhood livability

Increased ATG reduces resident perception of quality of life, street-facing activity, sidewalk interaction, residential property values

Studies identify automobile volumes as an independent variable in understanding resident perceptions of urban and suburban quality of life. TIRE index provides changes in automobile volumes that cause changes in residential environment.

 

Carbon emissions

Increased ATG reduces City’s ability to meet Climate Action Plan goals for reduced carbon emissions

Threshold would be set at 1 net ATG - the maximum allowable increase in automobile volumes that is consistent with the City’s CAP goal of 20% reduction in 1990 carbon emissions by 2010.

 

Water Quality

Increased ATG  reduces water quality (contaminated runoff from leaks of oil & other fluids)

Studies generally provide national or regional estimates of water pollution costs per VMT. Converting this data into an estimate of pollution cost per automobile trip could provide a threshold.

This table summarizes analysis of the impacts of increased Average Trip Generation (ATG) with regard to various planning objectives.

 

 

Is My Area Walkable? Some Questions To Help You Assess The Walkability Of A Locality And How It Can Be Improved.

Anne Matan, Curtin University Sustainability Policy (CUSP) Institute, Australia.

Published in Salter, Dhar and Newman (2011)

 

Use/Network

1. What is the volume of pedestrian traffic on this street? (pedestrian counts)

2. Who are the people using this street? Do they have special walking needs given their age or disability?

3. What is the pedestrian density of particular footpaths (numbers of pedestrians per metre width of footpath per minute)?

4. What are the main pedestrian routes in the area (day time and night time)?

5. What types of pedestrian facilities are in the area (dirt paths, paved footpaths/sidewalks, shared streets, pedestrian only streets, plazas, squares)?

6. What is the length and area of these pedestrian facilities?

7. What are the main arrival and exit points to the area? Are they connected via walkways?

8. How easy is it to walk through the area? (Do test walks to establish this.)

9. How adequate are footpaths/sidewalks in the area?(Some possible problems: no sidewalks, discontinuous, too narrow)

10. What proportion of streets have footpaths/sidewalks?

11. Are the footpaths/sidewalks complete on both sides of streets?

12. Is the footpath/sidewalk provision satisfactory in both major and smaller streets?

13. Are footpaths wide enough to cater for the number of people who walk on them?

14. What are the footpaths/sidewalks made from? (asphalt, concrete, paving bricks, flagstones, dirt, gravel, etc)

15. Are the sidewalks well maintained? (free from cracks, holes, rubbish, etc)

16. Are the block lengths short? (If they are long there may need to be walkways through the block.)

17. Does the pedestrian network connect major areas/destinations in the city?

18. Does the pedestrian network connect to primary destinations such as schools, hospitals, transit stations?

19. Is the pedestrian network itself well connected (with, for example, few pedestrian cul-de-sacs)?

 

Barriers

1. Is the area accessible to those with disabilities? Are there ramps instead of steps where possible?

2. Are there obstacles on the footpaths (for example, street trade, shanty dwellings, piles of rubbish, parked cars, animals, road or building construction materials, or a large number of poles and signs)?

3. Are there buffers between the road and the footpath, such as fences, bollards, trees, hedges, parked cars and landscaping? (Buffers have advantages and disadvantages, but they can screen walkways from traffic and prevent parking on the walkways.)

4. Are there many small interruptions to the pedestrian networks (e.g., minor road crossings, parking lot crossings, driveway crossings)?

5. Are there other major barriers to walking in the area (major roads, train tracks, rivers, hills, gated land uses, etc)?

6. Does the slope of the area make it hard to walk?

 

Intersections

1. How convenient is it to cross the street? Where are the pedestrian crossings?

2. What type of traffic intersections are used?

3. Are pedestrians given priority at intersections?

4. What are the crossing aides used at traffic intersections (pavement markings, different road surface or paving, signs, traffic lights, median traffic islands, curb bulbouts, underpasses, overpasses, etc.)?

5. Is crossing made easier either by curb cuts or road raising?

6. How safe is it to cross the street (at designated pedestrian crossings)?

7. Do drivers obey road laws and traffic signals?

8. Are pedestrian crossings clearly marked?

9. Do traffic signals indicate how long you need to wait before crossing, and how much remaining time you have to complete the crossing?

10. Do you need to press a button for a pedestrian signal to permit you to cross?

11. Are there any mid-block crossings? Are these adequate?

 

Public Transport Connection

1. Is the area connected to public transport? Where are the public transport nodes?

2. Are the public transport waiting areas of high quality (weather protection, information, signage, seating, waste receptacles. etc)?

 

Land use

1. What are the primary land uses of the area? (This will suggest the numbers of pedestrians at different times of the day.)

2. What are the primary destinations (industrial, commercial, governmental, recreational, community) in the area?

3. What is the population of residents and workers in the area?

 

Enjoyment

1. What are the main public areas (square, parks, plazas, etc)? Are they public (open to everyone) or private (limited access, controlled use)?

2. What is the quality of the public spaces (comfort, appearance, maintenance, possibilities for use)?

3. How many people are using these spaces? How are they using this space? (can be assessed through stationary activity counts or behavioural mapping)

4. Are there any spaces for children/elderly/youth within the city?

5. Does the area allow for physical activity, play, interaction and/or entertainment?

6. Are there any identifying features in the area (monuments, land marks, neighbourhood character)?

7. Is there any indication that one is entering a special district or area? (It’s good to have the neighbourhood character indicated in some way along the walkway.)

8. Are the walking areas interesting?

9. Are there interesting views?

10. Are there temporary activities in the area (markets, festivals, buskers, street performers, etc)?

11. Does the area allow for resting, for meeting others, for social interaction?

12. Is there adequate greening in the area (plants, trees, etc)?

13. Is the area of a high visual quality (pavements, facades, art, etc)?

 

Streetscapes

1. Where buildings meet the street, is it clear what is private and what is public space?

2. Are the dimensions of the buildings lining the footpaths at human scale?

3. Are the facades of the buildings lining the street transparent/active (i.e., do the buildings having many doors and windows opening onto the street, ‘soft edges’, with many niches, detailed facades)?

 

Infrastructure

1. What is the amount of seating available?

2. Is the seating in the right place (with regard to views, comfort and protection from climatic conditions, located at the edge of spaces)? Does the seating maximise the natural advantages of the area?

3. Are the seating arrangements appropriate (can you talk to friends)?

4. What is the quality of the seating?

5. Are there places to stand? To lean against? Attractive edges?229

6. Are waiting areas adequate, providing comfort and protection to pedestrians waiting for transit or to cross the street?

7. Are there enough rubbish bins?

8. Is there any public art?

9. Are there water fountains?

10. Are there wayfinding devices?

11. Are there public toilets?

 

Comfort

1. Is there adequate protection from the sun, rain and wind?

2. Is there adequate protection from negative aspects of vehicle traffic (pollution, noise etc)?

3. Are the ambient noise levels low and comfortable?

4. Do the sitelines allow you to see where you are going?

5. Is the area well maintained (footpaths, buildings lining the sidewalks, etc)?

6. Is the area clean (free from rubbish, broken glass, inappropriate graffiti)?

 

Safety

1. Is the area lively and active?

2. Is there street life?

3. Is there passive surveillance of the area? In other words, are there people around to watch out for each other? (This is especially important when it comes to night-time usage.)

4. Is the area safe? (both perceived and real)

5. Is the lighting from street lights and buildings adequate at night time?

6. Are there signs of other people at night time?

7. Are there night time uses of the area?

8. Is there a mix of land uses in the area?

9. Are there many small land uses?

10. Are the facades of buildings ‘closed’ at night?

11. Is there adequate visibility between modes of transport?

12. Is there protection from vehicle traffic?

 

Vehicle traffic

1. What is the traffic volume of the street? Does it make it hard/unpleasant for walking?

2. Is there street parking (on/off street)

3. What is the speed limit of the street? Does this make it hard/unpleasant for walking?

4. Are there any traffic calming or traffic control devices in the area?

5. How many lanes of traffic are there?

6. What are the traffic control devices used (traffic lights, stop signs, roundabouts, speed bumps, etc)?

 

Perception of the area

1. Is the area perceived as safe?

2. Is the area perceived as pleasant?

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

Atkins (2007), Pedestrian Level Of Service Model, Intelligent Space www.intelligentspace.com/modelling/levelofservice.htm.

 

Madeline Brozen, et al. (2014), Exploration And Implications Of Multimodal Street Performance Metrics: What’s A Passing Grade? UCTC-FR-2014-09, University of California Transportation Center (www.lewis.ucla.edu); at www.lewis.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/EXPLORATION-AND-IMPLICATIONS-OF-MULTIMODAL-STREET-PERFORMANCE-METRICS.pdf.

 

Dan Burden (2003), Level of Quality (LOQ) Guidelines, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org/library.htm); at www.tjpdc.org/transportation/walkability.asp. Shows graphically roadway design features that optimize pedestrian and cyclist access, safety and mobility, and transit station accessibility.

 

Cambridge Systematics, Transmode Consultants, Asil Gezen, and ICF Kaiser (1998), Mulitmodal Corridor Capacity Analysis Manual, NCHRP Report 399, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_399.pdf. Chapter 6 contains guidelines for developing performance indicators.

 

Cambridge Systematics (2010), Measuring Transportation Network Performance, NCHRP 664, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_664.pdf.

 

CDM Research (2014), Level of Service Model for Bicycle Riders, Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (www.tmr.qld.gov.au); at http://bicyclecouncil.com.au/files/research/LevelOfServiceModelForBicycleRiders.pdf.

 

Robert Cervero and G. B. Arrington (2008), “Vehicle Trip Reduction Impacts of Transit-Oriented Housing,” Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 1-17; at www.nctr.usf.edu/jpt/pdf/JPT11-3.pdf.

 

Chris Comeau (2009), “Moving Beyond the Automobile: Multimodal Transportation Planning in Bellingham, Washington,” Practicing Planner, Vol. 7, No. 3, September, American Planning Association (www.planning.org); at http://tinyurl.com/osre4j6

 

Claude Comtois and Jean-Paul Rodrigue (2008), “Technical Performance Indicators,” Geography of Transport Systems, (Hofstra University), Claude Comtois (Universite de Montreal) and Brian Slack (Concordia University) http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/meth3en/ch3m1en.html.

 

Anderson R. Correia, S.C. Wirasinghe and Alexandre G. de Barros (2008), “Overall Level of Service Measures For Airport Passenger Terminals,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 42, Issue 2 (www.elsevier.com/locate/tra), February 2008, pp. 330-346.

 

Joe Cortright (2010), Driven Apart: How Sprawl is Lengthening Our Commutes and Why Misleading Mobility Measures are Making Things Worse on Wednesday, CEOs for Cities (www.ceosforcities.org); at www.ceosforcities.org/work/driven-apart.

 

CUTR (2006), Transportation Concurrency Requirements and Best Practices: Guidelines for Developing and Maintaining An Effective Transportation Concurrency Management System, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.cutr.usf.edu); at www.cutr.usf.edu/pdf/TCBP%20Final%20Report.pdf.

 

CUTR (2008), Documenting Improved Mobility Techniques on SIS and TRIP Facilities, Center for Urban Transportation Research (www.cutr.usf.edu); at www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/pdfs/SISTRIP.pdf.

 

Michelle DeRobertis, John Eells, Joseph Kott, and Richard W. Lee (2014), “Changing the Paradigm of Traffic Impact Studies: How Typical Traffic Studies Inhibit Sustainable Transportation,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), May, pp. 30-35.

 

Linda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-9.

 

Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP Report 616, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9470; User Guide at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf. This describes ways to evaluate roadway design impacts on various modes (walking, cycling, driving and public transit).

 

Dowling (2010), CompleteStreetsLOS: Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Toolkit, Dowling Associates (www.dowlinginc.com/completestreetslos.php). This software program automates the procedures described in NCHRP Report 616, Multimodal Level of Service for Urban Streets, for evaluating complete streets, context-sensitive design alternatives, and smart growth from the perspective of all users of the street.

 

Peggy Edwards and Agis D. Tsouros (2008), A Healthy City Is An Active City: A Physical Activity Planning Guide, World Health Organization Europe (www.euro.who.int); at www.euro.who.int/InformationSources/Publications/Catalogue/20081103_1

 

Lily Elefteriadou, Richard Dowling and Paul Ryus (2015), “Exploring Multimodal Analysis in the Highway Capacity Manual 2010,” ITD Journal, Vol. 85, No. 2, pp. 27-31; at http://digitaleditions.sheridan.com/publication/?i=245375.

 

Aaron Elias and Kamala Parks (2013), HCM Urban Streets Methodology: Bicyclist, Pedestrian, and Transit Passenger, TRB Webinar; at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/131031.pdf.

 

Reid Ewing (1993), “Transportation Service Standards – As If People Matter,” Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 10-17.

 

FDOT (2001), Transit Level of Service Software (TLOS), Florida Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us); at www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/transitlevelofservicesoftware.htm; final report at www.dot.state.fl.us/transit/Pages/tlosfinalrpt.pdf.   

 

FDOT (2009), Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us); at www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/.

 

FDOT (2012), Expanded Transportation Performance Measures to Supplement Level of Service (LOS) for Growth Management and Transportation Impact Analysis, Florida Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us); at www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT_BDK77_977-14_rpt.pdf.

 

Fehr & Peers (2012), LOS+ Multi-Modal Roadway Analysis Tool (www.fehrandpeers.com/losplus), is a multi-modal level of service roadway analysis tool that analyzes auto, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit level of service for urban streets. 

 

FHWA (2001), Transportation Performance Measures Toolbox, Operations, Federal Highway Administration (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/travel/deployment_task_force/perf_measures.htm).

 

FHWA (2006), Shared-Use Path Level of Service Calculator, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (www.tfhrc.gov), Federal Highway Administration, USDOT; at www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/pubs/05138.

 

FHWA, Performance Measures Website (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/Travel/Deployment_Task_Force/perf_measures.htm), Federal Highway Administration.

 

Aimee Flannery, Douglas McLeod, and Neil J. Pedersen (2006), “Customer-Based Measures of Level of Service,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), May 2006; at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3734/is_200605/ai_n17177164/pg_1.

 

David J. Forkenbrock and Glen E. Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, Transportation Research Board, National Academy Press (www.trb.org).

 

N. Gallin (2001), “Quantifying Pedestrian Friendliness -- Guidelines For Assessing Pedestrian Level Of Service," Road & Transport Research, at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3927/is_200103/ai_n8933986.

 

Steven Gehrke (2012), A Review of Walkability Measures and the Proposal of a Standardized Classification Scheme, Paper 12-0361, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at http://assets.conferencespot.org/fileserver/file/25093/filename/1s99tb.pdf.

 

John P. Gliebe and James G. Strathman (2012), Development and Sensitivity Testing of Alternative Mobility Metrics, Portland State University for the Oregon Department of Transportation (www.oregon.gov); at www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP_RES/docs/Reports/2012/SPR716_Mobility.pdf.

 

David Green and Dr Ian Espada (2015), Level of Service Metrics (for Network Operations Planning), Austroads (www.austroads.com.au); at www.onlinepublications.austroads.com.au/items/AP-R475-15.

 

Martin Guttenplan and Seleta Reynolds (2012), “Measuring Multimodal Mobility with the Highway Capacity Manual 2010 and Other New Analysis Tools,” TR News 280, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews280toc.pdf.

 

Rachel E.M. Hiatt, Christopher E. Ferrell and Niko Letunic (2008), An Alternative to LOS: A Traffic Impact Analysis Standard Based on Auto Trips Generated, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).

 

Homburger, Kell and Perkins (1992), Fundamentals of Traffic Engineering, 13th Edition, Institute of Transportation Studies, UBC (www.its.berkeley.edu).

 

Peter Kenworthy (2008), “Transport Heaven and Hell,” ITS Magazine, February; at www.industry.siemens.de/traffic/EN/NEWS/ITSMAGAZINE/HTML/0802/fokus_1.html.

 

Kittelson (2003), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Second Edition, Report 100, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRB (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=2326.

 

Kevin J. Krizek, Michael Iacono, Ahmed El-Geneidy, Chen Fu Liao and Robert Johns (2009), Access to Destinations: Application of Accessibility Measures for Non-Auto Travel Modes, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota (www.cts.umn.edu); at www.cts.umn.edu/Publications/ResearchReports/reportdetail.html?id=1808.

 

Christopher Leinberger (2007), Footloose and Fancy Free: A Field Survey of Walkable Urban Places in the Top 30 U.S. Metropolitan Areas, Brookings Institution (www.brookings.edu); at www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2007/1128_walkableurbanism_leinberg/1128_walkableurbanism_leinberger.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2001), What’s It Worth? Life Cycle and Benefit/Cost Analysis for Evaluating Economic Value, Presented at Internet Symposium on Benefit-Cost Analysis, Transportation Association of Canada (www.tac-atc.ca); at www.vtpi.org/worth.pdf

 

Todd Litman (2003), “Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 73, No. 10, October, pp. 28-32, at www.vtpi.org/measure.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2005), Well Measured: Developing Indicators for Comprehensive and Sustainable Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/wellmeas.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2006), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranben.pdf .

 

Todd Litman (2007), Guide to Calculating Mobility Management Benefits, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tdmben.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2007), Build for Comfort, Not Just Speed: Valuing Service Quality Impacts In Transport Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/quality.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2008), Introduction to Multi-Modal Transport Planning, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/multimodal_planning.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2008), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis: Techniques, Estimates and Implications, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tca.

 

Todd Litman (2013), Toward More Comprehensive and Multi-modal Transport Evaluation, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/comp_evaluation.pdf; summarized in JOURNEYS, September 2013, pp. 50-58 (www.ltaacademy.gov.sg/journeys.htm); at www.ltaacademy.gov.sg/doc/13Sep050-Litman_ComprehensiveAndMultimodal.pdf.

 

Todd Litman and Tom Rickert (2005), Evaluating Public Transit Accessibility: ‘Inclusive Design’ Performance Indicators For Public Transportation In Developing Countries, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/tranacc.pdf.

 

Measuring Walking (www.measuring-walking.org) describes internationally standardised monitoring methods of walking and public space.

 

Nathan McNeil (2010), Bikeability and the Twenty-Minute Neighborhood: How Infrastructure and Destinations Influence Bicycle Accessibility, Portland State University (www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu); at www.ibpi.usp.pdx.edu/media/McNeil_Bikeability_June2010.pdf.

 

Michael Meyer and Richard Schuman (2002), “Transportation Performance Measures and Data,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), November 2002, pp. 48-49; based on Measuring System Performance: The Keys to Establishing Operations as a Core Agency Mission, Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration (www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/nat_dialogue.htm).

 

Ronald Milam and Chris Mitchell (2008), Conventional Level of Service Analysis, Thresholds, and Policies Get a Failing Grade, TRB Annual Meeting (www.trb.org); at http://opr.ca.gov/sch/pdfs/LOS_Climate_Change_Smart_Growth.pdf.

 

Adam Millard-Ball (2015), “Phantom Trips: Overestimating the Traffic Impacts of New Development,” Journal of Transportation and Land Use (www.jtlu.org); at http://tinyurl.com/m6ay4ut; summarized in, ACCESS 45, pp. 3-8 (www.accessmagazine.org/articles/fall-2014/phantom-trips).

 

Chris Mitchell and Ronald Milam (2006), Implementation of Customer-Based Transportation Level of Service Policies, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org).

 

Debbie Neimeier (1997), “Accessibility: An Evaluation Using Consumer Welfare,” Transportation, Vol. 24, No. 4, Klewer (www.wkap.nl/prod/j/0049-4488), Nov. 1997, pp. 377-396.

 

NJDOT (2012), A Guide To Creating A Complete Streets Implementation Plan, New Jersey Department Of Transportation (www.state.nj.us); at www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/completestreets/pdf/cscreateimplementationplan.pdf.

 

NYC (2006), New York City Pedestrian Level of Service Study, New York City (www.nyc.gov); at www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/transportation/td_ped_level_serv.shtml.

 

NYCDOT (2012), Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets, New York City Department of Transportation (www.nyc.gov/html/dot); at www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/2012-10-measuring-the-street.pdf.

 

Orlando (1998), Applicability of Vehicle Miles of Travel to Transportation Planning, City of Orlando, Florida (www.cityoforlando.net).

 

Brian Patterson and Sean Fadum (2013), Cycling Analysis In Metro Vancouver: Cycling Zone Analysis, Vancouver GIS Users Group (www.vancouvergis.org); at www.vancouvergis.org/docs/Urban_Systems_Cycle_Zone_Analysis.pdf.

 

PBIC (2009), Assessing Walking Conditions With An Audit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org); at www.walkinginfo.org/problems/audits.cfm.

 

Performance Measurement Exchange (http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/cops/pm.nsf/home), is a website supported by the U.S. Federal Highway Administration and the Transportation Research Board to promote better transportation decision-making.

 

Theodore Anton Petritsch, Bruce W. Landis, Herman F. Huang, and Richard G. Dowling (2007), Pedestrian Level-of-Service Model for Arterials, Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, (www.trb.org); at http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=847967.

 

Rhonda Phillips, John Karachepone and Bruce Landis (2001), Multi-Modal Quality of Service Project, Florida Department of Transportation, Contract BC205 (www.dot.state.fl.us/Planning/systems/sm/los/default.htm).

 

Stephanie Pollack, Anna Gartsman and Jeff Wood (2013), eTOD Station Area Rating System, Dukakis Center for Urban and Regional Policy (www.dukakiscenter.org); at www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/ES-final-10-17-13.pdf

 

PPS (2008), A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/How_to_Engage_Your_Transportation_Agency_AARP.pdf.

 

Richard H. Pratt (2003), Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes, TCRP Web Document 12 (www.trb.org/TRBNet/ProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=1034), DOT-FH-11-9579.

 

Quality/Level of Service Website (www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/default.shtm) by the Florida Department of Transportation provides extensive information on multi-modal level-of-service evaluation tools and professional development programs.

 

John Luciano Renne (2007), Measuring The Performance Of Transit-Oriented Developments In Western Australia, Planning and Transport Research Centre of Western Australia and the Institute for Sustainability and Technology Policy, Murdoch University; at www.vtpi.org/renne_tod_performance.pdf.

 

Robert Salter, Subash Dhar and Peter Newman (2011), Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation: Transport Sector, Risø Centre on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development, United Nations Environmental Program (www.uneprisoe.org); at http://tech-action.org/Guidebooks/TNAhandbook_Transport.pdf.

 

Marc Schlossberg, Asha Weinstein Agrawal, Katja Irvin and Vanessa Louise Bekkouche (2008), How Far, By Which Route, And Why? A Spatial Analysis Of Pedestrian Preference, Mineta Transportation Institute (www.transweb.sjsu.edu); at  http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/06-06/MTI-06-06.pdf

Robert J. Schneider, Susan L. Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh (2014) "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects," ACCESS 45, pp. 10-15; at http://tinyurl.com/oye8aqj. Also see the Smart Growth Trip-Generation Adjustment Tool, (http://ultrans.its.ucdavis.edu/projects/smart-growth-trip-generation). 

 

SFCTA (2003), Strategic Analysis Report on Transportation System Level of Service (LOS) Methodologies, San Francisco County Transportation Authority (www.sfcta.org); at www.sfcta.org/images/stories/legacy/documents/FinalSAR02-3LOS_Methods_000.pdf.

 

SFCTA (2008), Draft Final Report on the Automobile Trip Generation (ATG) Impact Measure and on the Proposed ATG Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Nexus Study, San Francisco County Transportation Authority (www.sfcta.org); at www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Executive/Meetings/pnp/2008/09sept09/atg%20memo%20pnp.pdf.

 

SFDPH (2007), Environmental Health Impacts of Transportation (Auto LOS Reform), San Francisco Department of Public Health; at www.dph.sf.ca.us/phes/comm_LOS.htm.

 

TRB (1987), “The Highway Capacity Model: Development and Application,” TR News, March–April; at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/rpo/rpo.trn129.pdf.

 

TRB (2010), Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://rip.trb.org/browse/dproject.asp?n=16893.

 

TRB (2013), Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual, Third Edition, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/main/blurbs/169437.aspx.

 

Darren Walton and Stephen J. Murray (2012), Minimum Design Parameters For Cycle Connectivity, Report 432, NZ Transport Agency (www.nzta.govt.nz); at www.nzta.govt.nz/resources/research/reports/432/docs/432.pdf.

 

Walkability Tools Research Webpage (www.levelofservice.com) provides guidance and data for Community Street Review (CSR) analysis of walkability.

 

WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks.

 

Washington County (2002), Oregon LOS, V/C ratio, Operating Speeds and Flow Characteristics; at www.co.washington.or.us/deptmts/lut/planning/ord2002/ord588a/TechAppB3.pdf.

 

Wikipedia (2008), “Level of Service,” Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_service).

 

Wilbur Smith (2008), Traffic & Transportation Policies and Strategies in Urban Areas in India, Ministry of Urban Development (www.urbanindia.nic.in); at www.urbanindia.nic.in/programme/ut/final_Report.pdf.

 

WRDC (2004), Measuring What Matters, Western Rural Development Center (www.extension.usu.edu/wrdc/resources/research/index.htm).

 

Yaping Xin, Liping Fu and Frank F. Saccomanno (2005), “Assessing Transit Level Of Service Along Travel Corridors : Case Study Using The Transit Capacity And Quality Of Service Manual,” Transportation Research Record 1927, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 259-267.


This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

VTPI

Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

#129