Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators
Tools For Evaluating The Quality of Transport Services and Facilities
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
18 August 2008
This chapter describes level-of-service (LOS) rating systems suitable for evaluating the quality of various transport modes from a 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 standards and targets, evaluate potential solutions, compare locations, and track trends.
Current transport planning focuses primarily on roadway LOS ratings that only reflect motor vehicle traffic speed and delay (Table 1). 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.
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 2. 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 2 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
Table 3 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 3 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.
Table 4 Pedestrian Level-of-Service (
|
|
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 5 Bicycle Level-of-Service (
|
|
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 6 Level of Service Ratings
|
LOS Rating |
Points |
|
A |
>17 |
|
B |
>14-17 |