Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators
Tools For Evaluating The Quality of Transport Services and Facilities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 26 January 2010
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.
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.
Excessive emphasis on roadway Level-of-service reflects a common planning problem: bias toward easy-to-measure impacts at the expense of more-difficult-to-measure impacts. For example, transportation engineers often produce maps showing roadway links and intersections considered to have excess traffic congestion (Level-of-Service rating D or worse), information that is used to define transportation problems and prioritize transportation system improvements, resulting in resources being directed at highway expansion. This type of analysis ignores:
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 (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 (SFDPH, 2007). 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.
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, 2002) 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. The “Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual” (Kittelson, 2003) provides information on public transportation LOS standards.
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. 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. |
|
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. |
|
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. · Area Livability (environmental and social quality of an area). · Community cohesion (quantity and quality of positive interactions among people in an area). · Number of parks and recreational areas accessible by nonmotorized facilities. |
|
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.
· Leinberger (2007) defines walkable urban areas based on density, mix, transit service quality, and walkability.
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. |
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. |
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 hours of service · Portion of destinations located within 500 meters of transit service. · Hours of 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. · Transit travel speed relative to driving the same trip. · Door-to-door travel time. |
|
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. |
· Dwell time · Boarding and alighting speeds. |
|
Users perceived safety and security. |
· Perceived transit passenger security. · Accidents and injuries. · Reported security incidents. · Visibility and lighting. · Official response to perceived risks. · Absence of vandalism. |
|
|
Price and affordability |
Fare prices, structure, payment options, ease of purchase. |
· Fares relative to average incomes. · Fares relative to other travel mode costs. · Targeted discounts or exemptions as appropriate. · Payment options (cash, credit cards, etc.) · Ticket availability (stations, stores, Internet, etc.) |
|
Integration |
Ease of transferring between transit and other travel modes (bus, train, ferry, airport, etc.). |
· Integration between transit routes service providers. · Integration between transit and other modes. |
|
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. · 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 capacity |
Accommodation of baggage. |
· Ability, ease and cost of carrying baggage, including special items such as pets. |
|
Accommodation of diverse users including people with special needs. |
· Accessible design for transit vehicles, 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 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 to service 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. · Speed and responsiveness with which complaints are treated. |
|
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 comfort and enjoyment |
· Internet service (on vehicles and in waiting areas) · Entertainment · Supports sociability and community cohesion |
|
Effectiveness of efforts to encourage public transportation. |
· Popularity of promotion programs. · Effectiveness at raising the social status of transit travel. · Increases in public transit ridership in response to marketing efforts. |
This table summarizes various factors that can be considered when evaluating public transportation services.
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. |
|
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. |
|
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. |
|
|
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.
Below are examples of Level-Of-Service indicators for other modes and transport services.
Ridesharing (carpooling and vanpooling) consists of travelers who share a vehicle, making use of otherwise unoccupied seats. Below are indicators of Ridesharing quality.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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).
Improved Travel Choice
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 primarily consist of various government agencies involved in transportation Planning and Operations, plus anybody involved in helping to create more multi-modal transportation systems.
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.
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.
|
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?”
|
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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, 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.
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.
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 15 summarizes a portion of the study’s analysis of the relationships between Average Trips Generated (ATG) and various impacts.
Table 16 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.
Atkins (2007) Pedestrian Level Of Service Model, Intelligent Space www.intelligentspace.com/modelling/levelofservice.htm.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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 (2002), Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.fl.us); at www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/systems/sm/los/los_sw2.shtm.
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).
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.
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 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.
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).
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.
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.
Orlando (1998), Applicability of Vehicle Miles of Travel to Transportation Planning, City of Orlando, Florida (www.cityoforlando.net).
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).
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.
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 (2000), Highway Capacity Manual, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at www.trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?ID=2716.
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 http://urbanindia.nic.in/moud/programme/ut/Traffic_transportation.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.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#129